Atheists & pro-evolutionists - a classic flaw in your Darwinian evolution hypothesis. . ?

Question

Atheists & pro-evolutionists - a classic flaw in your Darwinian evolution hypothesis. . ?

Answer 1

Whenever I see somebody presenting an alleged "major flaw" of evolution that "cannnot be explained", especially on a forum for discussion on religion and not science, then it has to be one of two things:



1) It is indeed some incredible discovery, big enough of a breakthrough to get a Nobel Prize, yet for some reason the person just mentions it on an internet forum as a trolling post instead of actually publishing it, or...



2) Much more likely, it's some attention-starved, armchair theologian who thinks he can disprove the whole cornerstone of modern biology with a few bogus arguments. Then when people don't take the debating bait or are just sick of his constant questions (after he doesn't read any sources people give him for his insincere questions), he erroneously calls himself the victor.



And the fact that the earth is billions of years old is not a "hypothesis". It has been tested against and verified though a number of independent methods in a more than one branch of science. It is far from being "a guess as good as any other".



By the way, your links are going to be treated as chopped off text strings unless you type the URLs in full.

Answer 2

Even if a flaw had been found in Darwin's findings (and what you're citing is not a flaw, anyway), it still doesn't change the fact that evolution happens. It's not like Darwin handed down some infallible gospel. Science will always be making new discoveries and refining its theories. None of it means evolution doesn't happen ... only that we understand it a little bit better as time passes and our knowledge continues to grow.



Josh, evolutionists have dirt? LOL, you do know how God supposedly created Adam, right? By breathing on a pile of dirt.



Sorry, but micro- and macro-evolution happen. They're all part of the same process, just on different time scales.

Answer 3

Frankly, trying to compare religion with science simply cannot be done; what's more why anyone would want to do it is beyond me. It's like trying to compare apples and oranges.



I am very suspicious of any position that in order to be right, must prove another position wrong. So far, not one shred of scientific evidence exists today that would indicate proof of the creation. This is a case where someone is reading darwin instead of their Bible.

God himself says he is unknowable. It is by faith that God's works are revealed. It's irrational. Science is just the opposite. It demands proof--sight, smell, color, taste, specific gravity, hardness, radioactivity, etc; etc; Science is rational and you will never win your argument through comparison with Darwin. Furthermore, you didn't read the whole Darwin. In fact he was a christian with no other ax to grind than the progress of science. He was a very good christian, according to the family.



You state that evolution is on the way out. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, new evidence points to it's accuracy, since carbon dating doesn't seem to satisfy your need to expose Darwin as a fraud. It's called DNA. With this relatively new tool it is now posible to prove and disprove a lot of things not possible before its discovery. one of the most amazing discoveries is that an unbroken chain

can be shown between ancient animals and birds and those on earth at present.



Will proof of the big bang(the creation was a tiny pop or what?) aside, will that change my faith in a power greater than myself? Hardly. If more of you so called creationists would read the Bible, you would see that the cause for conflict is man made. You don't like something that doesn't fit your scheme of things so you start attacking. You know you can't lose because you are not using a rational argument to make your case. You draw in the unsuspecting opponent who trys to match your unprovable discussion word for word, but he is frustrated. He is using logic, while you, on the other hand, use questionable "science" to explain your position. Your position is untenable. It is built on a mound of sand.

Now I have stated my case. I believe my argument is sound. What's more the Bible, which you claim as your own, is mine to quote from also. The reason your

people so blatently play free and loose with what's in the Bible is you think you are the only ones ever studied it.

The fact is the Jews wrote the Bible, I see your people raising it in the air and proclaiming its truth every morning.

It seems what you accept as the truth is not always what the Jews wrote down in the Book. Not happy with what the Book says? Change it to suit your own purposes. The building of huge temples and churches and the big business religion has become is not in any Bible I have read. The merging of church and state is clearly not what Jesus wanted but that's exactly what we have today.

Luther revolted because the church sold indulgances. Wow. You guys are pros now. Suvs wherever you go, suits and ties, the order of the day. Billions in untaxed dollars, untaxed land that could be put to use aiding the poor but the quazi/churches today keep the focus off that line of questioning by keeping the heat on gays and abortion and couples who simply want to get by, like everyone else down there on the ladder.

Careful who you refute. That door swings both ways.

Answer 4

Oh, what bloody nonsense... another strawman argument.



Look... again... the 'Theory of Evolution' provides an explanatory framework for the OBSERVED FACT that the genetic makeup of populations of organisms (the 'gene pool') changes, over time.



The search for fossils has absolutely nothing to do with 'proving' evolution. It has only to do with increasing our knowledge base by painting a picture of the sequence of changes by which life on earth got to where it is today.... and that is ALL it has to do with.



NO fossils have been found that have 'refuted' or ''falsified' the theory of evolution... you are lying again.



When you have found a bunnyrabbit fossil or something like that in the Burgess Shale, you will have succesfully 'falsified' evolution. Why don't you just go do that, and get back to us then?

.

Answer 5

I actually don't understand why your example refutes evolutionary theory.



Let me attempt to understand...so, your saying a Darwinist finds and animal, x. He uses his particular science, (genetics, etc.), to come to the conclusion it has evolved into a present day animal, y.



Period.



Then you come along, you...and theorize this animal is neither x nor y but a separate animal, z, that was related to the modern day animal but has become extinct.



Why isn't it semantics at that point what you call it, if you both are in agreement this animal was related to the modern day animal?



If you are in agreement with the scientist that the animal was related, how does this refute evolutionary theory in general?



I realize I may be pedantic, I just don't understand what you are saying. Sorry.

Answer 6

Like everything else in life you either believe or don't. The atheists don't listen to the scientist that refute Darwin like they don't listen to anything else that threatens their belief system. The fact is just looking at DNA anyone should be able to tell that it took intelligence to CREATE it. The fact that an explosion of matter floating through a void suddenly burst and was suddenly intelligent and thought of and planned out every Minuit detail that caused and sustains life [ all from nothing now ] is ridiculous. The fact that this chaotic matter form not just one life form but thousands, come on. There was an Intelligent being with awesome power who did that. Since when did and uncontrolled explosion ever produce anything but a big mess? That is the very basics of science. The truth is they will only believe what they want to believe, while most Christians were not always Christians but we still looked for the truth at some point and were willing to see it. And please don't get me started on how they us God as an excuse because he allows disasters to happen, why don't they consider that part of evolution if that is what they believe? The earth evolves and the strongest survive, right?

Answer 7

Another flaw that the entire biological community has somehow overlooked? I think not.



Each species in a transitional sequence is adapted as an independent species in its own right. But its adaptations preadapt descendant species for other niches, causing a transitional sequence. A careful study of comparative skeletal anatomy can reveal much about transitional sequences. Here's just one example of the evolutionary transition of fish to tetrapod (many species left out for reasons of space):



Eusthenopteron 385mya

Had strong bones in the upper fins; adaptive for locomotion in shallow water.



Gogonasus 380mya

Same skeleton as Eusthenopteron, but fin bones are stronger, denser, a little lower into the fin.



Elpistostege, Livonia, Panderichthys 378 mya

Fin bones are now very low into fin

Still a useful adaptation for manuevering in a shallow sea.



Tiktaalik 375 mya

Now has tiny beginnings of fingers at the end of the fins, and the beginning of a crude joint in the fin.

Would have been adaptive for clawing its way through an inlet choked with vegetation.



Elginerpeton, Obruchevichthys 370 mya

Proto-fingers are now a little longer



Sinostega, Metaxygnathus, Ventastega.Tulerpeton, Jakubsonia,

Hynerpeton, Densignathus, etc. 365 mya

Finger bones even longer, some species have as many as 8 proto fingers; still not sturdy enough to come onto land, but very useful in manuevering through water choked with vegetation.



Acanthostega 360mya

Same as before but stronger bones yet, with longer ribs; would have been capable of moving on land like a mud-skipper, going from tidal pool to tidal pool



Icthyostega 358mya

2 of the 8 fingers fusing into one finger, which will give its

descendants 5 fingers, stronger forelims and enclosed ribs. This is the first fish that would have been capable of spending some time on land and feeding on land.



Pederpes 355 mya

Very similar to above, but with enough small modifications that it may be called either proto amphibian or perhaps first true amphibian



Casineria, Lethicus 350 mya

Silvanerpeton 340 mya

Definitely amphibians that can easily walk on land. Still has a very fish-like body shape, but with many skeletal features of modern amphibians.

Answer 8

Hi again, Adviso!



How can species y be "related to" species z if there is no evolution? I'm not understanding the basis of the question.



Edit: Well... "related" means "linked by genetics." Evolutionary theory is how we explain the way all creatures are linked by genetics. If you conceed that these creatures of different species are, in fact, linked by genetics, then you are, in fact, espousing evolution. They are related because they share a common ancestor - just like I am related to my cousin because we have the same grandpa (common ancestor).



Edit again: Well, I don't think that there is any question that ancient species x is the forerunner of modern species x. I mean, for example, I can trace my family tree back to the sister of Julius Caesar. If x = homo sapiens sapiens, Caesar's sister would represent ancient species x and I would be modern species x. Obviously, Julia isn't running around enjoying life, but I am. But lets say Julia and Julius had a brother - we'll call hime Julio. Now let's say Julio dies never having had children. Julio's line is now extinct. Or perhaps Julio lives and has kids, but EVENTUALLY, whether it's because Julio passes down a genetic defect or whatever, there are no living descendants of Julio Caesar. For whatever reason, Julio's line is extinct. It doesn't mean, though, that I'm not related to Julio. He is my greatgreatgreat... uncle.



Edit 3: Ah... okay, so the issue is with "macro" versus "micro" evolution. Remember, science has established that the earth is BILLIONS of years old. The mere 2,000 years between me and "Julio" is nothing on that scale.



The species itself does not evolve, but rather he gene pool, meaning at no point does anyone contend that an ape gave birth to a human baby. What happend is that as this Ur-ape (they know the name, but I don't. I think it's Austrolipithicus or something like that, but for heaven's sake, don't quote me!)... as the Ur-ap bred, the gene pool became more and more varied, as gene pools do. Mutations occur and traits that were already in the gene pool become more plentiful if they enable the species to flourish in its environment.



As certain traits emerge as helping the species to flourish, they become desirable in chosing a mate and those that do not have this trait are more likely to die without progeny. Gradually, those creatures without said trait die out in that particular area. Now the same trait that may be very useful to a group of birds on a tropical island may be detrimental to a flock of the same birds who somehow found themselves on a distant island in the North Sea. Now the tropical birds and the North Sea birds are the same species, BUT their respective gene pools will evolve very differently because trail A will be encouranged in the tropical birds and discouraged in the North Sea birds.



Eventually, the undesirable traits are no longer in the gene pools. Poof, the gene pool has evolved. Now if this happens in a manner that precludes the mating of the tropical bird with the north sea bird, we have speciation. Not as exciting as a finch giving birth to a pelican, but MUCH more logical. :-)



Edit 4: Now we've branched into Astronomy, Cosmology and physics. I think (again, me=non-expert) between the known rate of the expansion of the universe via red shift and isochron dating we have a pretty good picture of the age of the universe. I know a lot of Creationists will call these "assumptions," but I have to revert to a very old and tired reply: so is Creation. We have ventured into an area where it takes the best minds in the world years and years to understand and I'm sad to admit that I just can't keep up with it! LOL.



As for Hawking, that is the beauty of science: if they get something wrong, they drop it like a hot potato and go looking for the RIGHT answer! AND the bet he lost? It was with a CalTech scientist, who won the bet with HIS ideas about black holes. Scientists are always working on conflicting ideas and when it comes to cosmology, astronomy and theoretical physics, it's right when the numbers add up. Like string theory: there were 5 conflicting theories in 1994 then Witten gave his lectire in 1995 and "string theory" is old hat. Witten unified them in M-theory. Does that mean that all the scientists working on string theory were wrong? No. They were just looking at it from the wrong angle.

Answer 9

This is how evolution works. A given species over time eventually will have a mutation in the genes. Sometimes this mutation provides benefits to the species so it passes on this advantage to its offspring and the rest either die off or branch into another species. This process that spans millions of years is how we have the diversity of animals today.

Answer 10

While the author of the question is not pointing out any such "flaw", let suppose, hypothetically, one was found.





How exactly does this lend credence to "Creationism"? Many fundies seem to assume that if they can find a single thing wrong with the current theory, everything must default to some religious thing.



Scientists, on the other hand, get excited, and further refine the theory.

Answer 11

Ah, haven't heard this debate in a few weeks!



Before everyone goes spouting off on how evolution happens all the time, just remember the difference between evolution and Evolution. Between micro and macro. Micro evolution happens all the time, and many textbooks use micro evolution as 'proof' for macro Evolution. Macro Evolution has never happened, there is no proof for it (but a lot of passionate people who will kill for it!). Personally, I believe Macro Evolution is more amazing then Creationism. Creationists at least had an almighty God, but Evolutionists have, dirt!



There is no way anyone is going to change their position on here. Evolutionists hold firmly to their faith because they have been taught it for years AND because they have been taught that Creationists are dumb and brainless. Creationists aren't going to change their mind because the believe in God and that fits perfectly with everything in nature.



By the way, when you posted the link for the site with the proof, you have to put it in the "source" box. Your URL got cut off and ppl are making fun of you because they can't get to the site.

Answer 12

If we found one fossil, that might have a trace of merit. The vast collection of fossils has shown a linkage that has been independently demonstrated by molecular techniques. Yes, if you examine one piece in isolation from the rest of the evidence, there is no observable tendency to measure.

Answer 13

So what you're saying is that this little "flaw" you have in evolution completely proves it wrong, and that the best alternative explanation is that god did it? Yes, how very classic indeed. How convenient.

Answer 14

You do realize that the theory of evolution has changed since Darwin, right? There are decades of evidence supporting it, not just the one guy's theory.



And actually, that can be explained. It's called transitions.

Answer 15

Uh-huh. So because you can't see the similarities, you assume that it can't be true.



How ego-centric. And unscientific. If the first scientist is wrong, there's big reputation-boosting bucks for the scientist who proves it. Kind of keeps everyone honest.

Answer 16

One more thing: so the specimen a evolved into the specimen b, right? Why? Because the condition were innapropriate for a to survive, so it adapted. Then, why there are still specimens a on this day?

Also, the DNA between the ape and humans is simmilar, but not exact. So, how in earth, did this DNA changed, and why? Because DNA is not affected by climate or whatever.

And, do you like to consider yourself an ape? I think that's ashameful, but it's your problem, monkey :))

Oh, yeah, remembered this: Near his death (at old ages), Darwin said to his wife that he is sorry for the chaos and lies he made. Probably you'll say I invented this, buy I don't give a f*ck, you chimps.

Answer 17

Here is one for you: "A Short History of Almost Everything" by Bill Bryson.

Answer 18

You understand that even if evolution were disproven it does not make creationism or christianity any more real right?

Answer 19

Most non-scientists seem to be quite confused about precise definitions of biological evolution. Such confusion is due in large part to the inability of scientists to communicate effectively to the general public and also to confusion among scientists themselves about how to define such an important term. When discussing evolution it is important to distinguish between the existence of evolution and various theories about the mechanism of evolution. And when referring to the existence of evolution it is important to have a clear definition in mind. What exactly do biologists mean when they say that they have observed evolution or that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor?



One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:



"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."



- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986



It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,



Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.



This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution. Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:



"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."



- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974



One can quibble about the accuracy of such a definition (and we have often quibbled on these newsgroups) but it also conveys the essence of what evolution really is. When biologists say that they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the frequency of genes in a population. (Often the genetic change is inferred from phenotypic changes that are heritable.) When biologists say that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor they mean that there have been successive heritable changes in the two separated populations since they became isolated.



Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:



"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."



This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring, but the definition provides no easy way of distinguishing evolution from other processes. For example, is the increase in height among Caucasians over the past several hundred years an example of evolution? Are the color changes in the peppered moth population examples of evolution? This is not a scientific definition.



Standard dictionaries are even worse.



"evolution: ...the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower.." - Chambers



"evolution: ...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny" - Webster's



These definitions are simply wrong. Unfortunately it is common for non-scientists to enter into a discussion about evolution with such a definition in mind. This often leads to fruitless debate since the experts are thinking about evolution from a different perspective. When someone claims that they don't believe in evolution they cannot be referring to an acceptable scientific definition of evolution because that would be denying something which is easy to demonstrate. It would be like saying that they don't believe in gravity!



Recently I read a statement from a creationist who claimed that scientists are being dishonest when they talk about evolution. This person believed that evolution was being misrepresented to the public. The real problem is that the public, and creationists, do not understand what evolution is all about. This person's definition of evolution was very different from the common scientific definition and as a consequence he was unable to understand what evolutionary biology really meant. This is the same person who claimed that one could not "believe" in evolution and still be religious! But once we realize that evolution is simply "a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations" it seems a little silly to pretend that this excludes religion!



Scientists such as myself must share the blame for the lack of public understanding of science. We need to work harder to convey the correct information. Sometimes we don't succeed very well but that does not mean that we are dishonest. On the other hand, the general public, and creationists in particular, need to also work a little harder in order to understand science. Reading a textbook would help.

Answer 20

And that refutes evolution how?



Oops, forgot that part, didn't you?