Post Reply 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Failures of evolution theory
08-27-2009, 02:03 AM
Post: #1
Failures of evolution theory

It is difficult for people these days to believe what the Bible teaches about the Creation. They may deem the Biblical description of creation wrong and old-fashioned, while their view of the universe and all living things coming into existence by accident seems more correct. Hence, some people believe that the theory of evolution – in which everything evolved by itself – is correct. This theory was proposed by Charles Darwin in On the Origin of Species (1859).

Is it possible, however, that there are faults in this theory? Is it possible that it is not true, but false? The supporters of this theory certainly deny this possibility, but it should be noted that weaknesses and inconsistencies in the theory can be found even in their own writings. These have been discussed, but the possibility of the doctrine's whole foundation being wrong and untenable has never been brought out. It has generally been denied.

In any case, the following examples -- both from the same book -- illustrate the problem well. Italics have been added for clarification. They show how Darwin's theory may be regarded as completely true, but elsewhere it is stated that it rests on an unstable foundation. These possible faults in the theory are examined below:

Once you get rolling, the story of life becomes a logical, absolutely unavoidable chain of causes and consequences. Science can find out its links along with all the fascinating details, but how life started is still a huge mystery. There is no convincing explanation for it. The chemical components of living organisms and biochemical reactions that sustain life are known very accurately, but the final spark of life still remains unclear. Life: such a self-evident and simple phenomenon, yet so difficult to explain...

There is no question that life came into existence from earthly material, and from the stars and universe. From the same materials that have circulated in timeless space over and over again. We are all basically star dust. Just as life evolved from one cell and became more and more complicated and endlessly varied, so there has also been evolution on earth. It has become denser from the dust cloud that was between the stars and cooled down almost four billion years ago into a compact ball, but to this day is subject to what its own internal heat has created. (John Reader, Alkumerestä maalle, p. 9, 25, 26 / The Rise of Life)

Chapter 1 - Do fossils prove evolution?

Chapter 2 - The most convincing evidence supporting the theory of evolution

Chapter 3 - The most important factors in evolution

Chapter 4 - Gaps in the theory of evolution

References / Sources
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-27-2009, 03:57 AM (This post was last modified: 08-27-2009 04:43 AM by GTseng3.)
Post: #2
RE: Failures of evolution theory
Boy, where do I begin. It's a very comprehensive website you have there. Unfortunately, the errors begin on the very first page, in the foreward. You know, besides them spelling "foreward" wrong (or is that just a difference in national spelling? We Americans do get so many good words wrong."

Anyway, the passage in question:
Quote:while their view of the universe and all living things coming into existence by accident seems more correct.

By accident? Evolution is no accident. This illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution, one I shared myself until I really started studying the subject. Evolution is far from accidental. It is true that there is a random element - that of random mutation. However, this is coupled with natural selection. Natural selection states that all random mutations that are less compatible with an environment will be less likely to live, and thus will die out. Random mutations that are more compatible with an environment will be more likely to live, and thus thrive. Thus, over the course of hundreds of generations, a species naturally, gradually adapts to its environment. Its genetics slowly change and it becomes more suited to the place it is living. This is actually observed scientific fact, the process of mutation and adaptation through natural selection has been observed in many organisms, the most famous of which is the "nylon-eating" bacteria that adapted to an entirely new food source. This is all very well documented.

Again, still in the "foreward", there are more problems. Such as this.

Quote:Science can find out its links along with all the fascinating details, but how life started is still a huge mystery. There is no convincing explanation for it.

This is because the beginning of life has nothing to do with evolution. The beginning of life is "Abiogenesis," and while it is related to evolution on some points, it has nothing to do with Darwin's book. Darwin did not try to speculate on the origin of life itself, but rather on the origin of the species of life - how life became diverse and specialized, which is extremely well understood and supported by modern genetics.

So right there in the "foreward" we have two misconceptions that, as I read on, I suspect will invalidate the whole book (we shall see.) First, evolution is not in any way accidental or even random (the element of randomness is completely controlled by the element of natural selection), and second evolution does not even attempt to explain the origin of life. Indeed, there are many Christians who accept evolution (though in this poster's humble opinion evolution naturally leads to an atheistic view of abogenesis.)

I will continue to read this book and post my thoughts.
Chapter 1.

Well, he starts off with an old chestnut.

Quote:Do we find buried in the ground plenty of developing forms, such as half-developed wings, hands, feet, senses, or some other intermediate forms?

No, we do not find such evidence. Instead, we find that various organisms have always differed from each other. The gaps between fossils are great and real, and intermediate forms have not been found.

Once again the author shows his utter ignorance of what evolution actually is. Evolution does not predict half-developed wings. Half-developed wings would serve no evolutionary purpose. Evolution instead predicts longer arms (found), skin for gliding (found), leathery wings (found), proto-feathered wings (found), and feathered wings (found). Indeed, one has to look very, very hard to find a species that is not an intermediate form, especially given what we know of genetics. Intermediate forms are all over the place.

He then quotes Charles Darwin. Or CLAIMS he does. In actuality, as his references state, he is quoting a citation from "The Collapse of Evolution". Indeed, I ran a search on this passage in an online text of "On the Origin of Species", and it was nowhere to be found. Even a small portion did not match. I can only assume that the author is deliberately misquoting Darwin in order to mislead the reader, in a disgraceful display of dishonesty.

I am tempted to discard the entire book at this point, but in the interest of completeness I will continue. However, I posit that any author who is willing to use such blatant misdirection does not deserve our time and belief.

The author later quotes:
Quote:The gaps are real, and can never be filled in. (A statement of Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson approximately 50 years ago. [2])

Nilsson did live 50 years ago. In Nilsson's time, continental drift was not an accepted theory (leading Nilsson to believe that massive tidal waves had caused certain fossil spread.) In addition, there was no concept of modern genetics in Nilsson's time. While his theory might have held water 50 years ago, modern genetics has shown that the gaps have been filled in, to the point where the result of a single retrovirus in a common ancestor can be traced through the genetics of chimps, and their descendants, mankind.

Quote:The greatest mystery of the fossil materials is that we have not found any clear factor that takes evolution forward in the history of life. (…) We have set the findings in order based on our wishes, but this order cannot actually be found in the real world. (Stephen J. Gould, The Ediacaran Experiment. Natural History, vol. 93, Feb. 1984, p.23)

I love the internet. Did you know that the complete text of "The Ediacaran Experiment" can be found online? Did you further know that this quote is found NOWHERE IN IT? This is the second time for this author, who clearly has no problem lying about his sources.

Quote:It is strange that the gaps in the fossil material are consistent in a certain way: fossils are missing from all the important places. (Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe, 1982, p. 19)

I couldn't find the text of "The Neck of the Giraffe" for free online, and I'm not going to buy the book since Hitching is a man with no real credentials. But I suspect this quote is fake too, for the simple reason that Hitching believes in evolution. What he doesn't believe in is an atheistic explanation for evolution (which he falsely calls "Darwinism".) Indeed, here's one of Hitching's actual quotes:

Quote:Evolution of life over a very long period of time is a fact, if we are to believe evidence gathered during the last two centuries from geology, paleontology, molecular biology and many other scientific disciplines. Despite the many believers in Divine creation who dispute this ..., the probability that evolution has occurred approaches certainty in scientific terms. [The Neck of the Giraffe, Ticknor & Fields, New Haven, Connecticut, 1982, p. 12 (p. 4, paperback)]

The author then quotes Luther Sunderland, a creationist whose views are far from unbiased (and far from accurate), a mysterious "Dr. Etheridge" whom I can only assume is Robert Etheridge, who was never curator but worked in the British Museum in, get this, the 19th century (before any modern understanding of the theory of Evolution,) and Austin H. Clark, who died in 1954 (again before any modern understanding of evolution or genetics.)

So, every single quote in this section is either a misquote, a fellow creationist, or else someone who died before modern studies of biology and genetics established evolution as a solid scientific premise.
Now he moves away from his (false) quotes, and into his false science. To wit:

Quote:When examining nature, it is impossible to see species changing into other species.

Actually speciation, which is precisely this, has been observed many times in nature, and in laboratory settings. Indeed, if a given population is set in two different environments, and given a few hundred generations, speciation is practically inevitable.

Quote:Even Darwin stated (see above) that modern nature is composed of clearly determined species.

As I noted, this is a blatant fabrication by the author.

Quote:Same life forms as now and the differences between species. First of all, fossils belong to the same main groups as the plants and animals today.

I wonder where the author gets this idea? There are vastly different species from entirely different branches of genetics throughout the fossil record that simply do not exist anymore. I think the author is suggesting that we should see something that does not fit into the incredibly vague groups of "mammal" "reptile" "bird" "fish" "insect", etc. Which of course is ridiculous, as those are simply words we use to describe animals with similar evolutionary traits. Extinct species are often vastly different from modern species.

Quote:They are equally developed, complicated, and similar to present forms; and they differed as much from each other in the past to the same extent that they differ today.

Now this is an interesting statement. It's true that fossils of creatures are fairly developed, mostly because primitive creatures do not tend to have a structure that would leave a fossil behind. However, clear evolutionary processes can be seen, such as the locomotion of early fish (rather primitive) compared to the locomotion of modern fish (sophisticated).

Quote:This suggests permanence of species

On the contrary, I haven't seen many trilobites about. Nor have I seen any colecanths, or Triceratops. Conversely, the entire theory of evolution could be completely disproven if you could find a fossilized chicken in pre-cambrian strata, or a fossilized modern human in Jurassic strata. Of course, no such fossils exist, because the fossil record entirely supports evolution.

Quote:The “explosion” of life in the Cambrian period has been deemed the best evidence of the sudden appearance of life.

Creationists love this one. The sudden "explosion" of life in the Cambrian. Except when scientists use the term "Cambrian explosion" and speak of the word "suddenly," what they're really referring to is a period of about 50 million years. This is indeed "sudden" in terms of the Earth's 4.5 billion year old history, but it is more than enough time for plain old normal evolution to do its long work.

And thus my critique of chapter 1 ends. The author has proven to us that he is willing to lie, cheat, and swindle to get you to believe him (and theoretically buy his book.) He has fallen back on creationist tropes that have been explained through the rational scientific mind, again proving that evolution may be called a theory, but it is a SCIENTIFIC theory. Like the theory of gravity and atomic theory. And it should be treated with all the respect that those other two theories are given.

I'm back baby! Thanks for everyone who sent me PMs asking what had happened to me.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-27-2009, 07:14 AM
Post: #3
RE: Failures of evolution theory
GT, I think you're missing the point somewhat, and splitting hairs which don't matter. Fossils were put there to test our faith:

This one is certainly an untruth too:
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-27-2009, 07:16 AM (This post was last modified: 08-27-2009 08:47 AM by Raphael.)
Post: #4
RE: Failures of evolution theory
(08-27-2009 02:03 AM)PetriFB Wrote:  Chapter 1 - Do fossils prove evolution?

Chapter 2 - The most convincing evidence supporting the theory of evolution

Chapter 3 - The most important factors in evolution

Chapter 4 - Gaps in the theory of evolution

References / Sources

Where is the chapter that discusses the role of DNA or RNA? (unchanged in 4 billion years?)

Why have the DNA CODES NOT evolved in 4 billion years?

DNA is comprised of 64 distinct codons or CODES that form the basis of ALL LIFE on EARTH...plant and animal...
PetriFB did you know you share DNA with a banana?
It explains why the chimps like you and me wanna be seen as champs?

The basic blueprint DNA/RNA does not change...?
However Amino Acids arriving via meteors and comets add to the diversity.
Because DNA gives the orders to the amino acids to help build the proteins...

Thus more Amino Acids are introduced to the biosphere leading to 'evolution'.
make sense?
>>suggesting that Velikovsky's theory re: planet/comet Venus could be more credible than formerly believed or acknowledged by the 'expert'?
>>suggesting further that cataclysms/meteor showers that have been proved that ARE part of Earth's history serve a definite PURPOSE?
To help us evolve?
>>suggesting Cosmic sperm via comets/meteors (they even look the same? the sperm and the comet?) are thus embedded into the EARTH...the EGG?

This next article was sent to me by a friend who has been aware of my 'journey' these past 4/5 years...aware of what I have 'written' as the info arrived...Cool
A unique journey (IMHO) that many of the paradoxical smart/dumb folks on this forum like to try to discredit. Tongue

Quote:Chains of amino acids are strung together to form protein molecules in everything from hair to the enzymes that regulate chemical reactions inside living organisms. But scientists have long puzzled over whether these complex organic compounds originated on Earth or in space.

The latest findings add credence to the notion that extraterrestrial objects such as meteorites and comets may have seeded ancient Earth, and other planets, with the raw materials of life that formed elsewhere in the cosmos.

"The discovery of glycine in a comet supports the idea that the fundamental building blocks of life are prevalent in space, and strengthens the argument that life in the universe may be common rather than rare," said Carl Pilcher, the director of the NASA Astrobiology Institute in California, which co-funded the research.

Glycine and other amino acids have been found in a number of meteorites before, most notably one that landed near the town of Murchison, Australia in 1969, Elsila said.

Question for you GT.
Are there 20 or 22 amino acids?
The article says 20...but is that true?
This link suggests 22. (re: proteins)

But here is where it gets interesting (for me) ...and I take it to the next level of understanding...using the language of the gods...the language of archetype.
20 + 2
And how does this correlate to the Tarot dude?
Being an expert in the Tarot might have a clue?

continued next post...
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-27-2009, 08:48 AM
Post: #5
RE: Failures of evolution theory
continued from above post...

Again what I am suggesting, my intuitive archetypal insights, what I wrote, is well beyond most sheeple's ability to comprehend ... because they have NOT done the necessary research in trying to find the threads that join the dots...most folks spend their time distancing themselves from the truth actually...
part I
part II
part III
part IV

GT let me add, just because you or your guru Parousia fail to follow along on many of my threads does NOT negate my journey dude.
I feel I am well ahead of the plodding empirical scientist who is handicapped by the fact he uses only a small percentage of his brain, coupled with his ego's inability to acknowledge this fact as a possible hindrance to his scientific endeavors.

...I wrote my blog re: Amino Acids in January 2008 after receiving the info from the 'hall of records'.
That article above meant to be digested by the mainstream herd of sheeple is from August 2009.

And let me say this again ... my journey is unique (so is yours) ... and though we eventually all end up in the same place, suggesting beneath it all, is a truth that can be comprehended, if we look at the common denominators with intuition as a guide.
Ignoring the bleats of experts helps too!!

So I do ponder is Genesis...a chapter that is discussing a gene thesis?

Prove to me it is NOT.


NATURE cannot be HIDDEN only VEILeD with NARRATIVES that defy NATURE

CodeX4 and the Reconciliation of Science and Religion
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-27-2009, 12:38 PM
Post: #6
RE: Failures of evolution theory
(08-27-2009 07:14 AM)Zagreus Wrote:  GT, I think you're missing the point somewhat, and splitting hairs which don't matter. Fossils were put there to test our faith:

This one is certainly an untruth too:

Cute. Cute links. Though I prefer This one (warning: strong language)

I'm back baby! Thanks for everyone who sent me PMs asking what had happened to me.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-27-2009, 06:01 PM
Post: #7
RE: Failures of evolution theory
Nah, Izzard is a comedian. Hicks is a 2) at the least!!!

This has nothing to do with any conversation we've had, or ever will, but it makes me laugh:

I'm so sorry...
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-25-2009, 01:29 AM
Post: #8
RE: Failures of evolution theory
Thanks for sharing the post... Such a nice information on Evolution Theory...
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-25-2009, 10:30 AM
Post: #9
RE: Failures of evolution theory
You know, I'm often very embarrassed to read my old posts. My post on this subject was barely a month ago, and yet already in my insatiable quest for knowledge I have learned new things.

I noted in my long critique of the forward and chapter 1 of this specious babble that fossils were fairly well formed because simpler creatures did not fossilize. While this is technically true, there is abundant evidence for very simple creatures. Indeed, we know a lot about early life from these signs. So I was wrong. There is in fact an incredible abundance of evidence for simple life in the Cambrian and pre-Cambrian, which only emphasizes how wrong this author is.

Furthermore, do you know what I discovered recently? That in fact the fossil record has a large number of types of life that simply does not exist anymore. There have been five major and countless minor extinction events throughout earth history, and often times entire branches of life have been completely wiped out by these events, and now exist only in fossil form.

So I am sorry for being wrong a month ago, and giving the author far more credit than he is due.

I'm back baby! Thanks for everyone who sent me PMs asking what had happened to me.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-29-2009, 12:00 AM
Post: #10
RE: Failures of evolution theory
HI all,

You know how they are so eloquent when they are talking about apes being 98 per cent human? You know how good they are telling the world that there is shape shifting, we were once frogs who begot giraffes who begot chimps who begot humans? Is this voodoo science ( do you remember voodoo economics?) or is based on solid laws?

We can test whether these men have lost their marbles or they are, what they dream, that they will one day become i.e. demigods.

Now if Evolution is true why is it that experiments to interbreed chimps and humans have failed? The scientific dictator Uncle Joseph Stalin commissioned Ilya Ivanov to produce strong men by interbreeding men and apes. If what what so called scientists claims were true that would have a walk in the park, but he failed to make the experiments work. I want to drive this point home again they failed to produce half a man and half a monkey.

I smell a rat, no half a rat half a frog. maybe a human being is not 98 per cent chimp after all and maybe evolution is just recycled reincarnation myth?

There you are, Stalin tested the theory of evolution claims but it was found wanting, it was exposed as a myth.

weight loss
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
At Evolution theory and Islam (a comparative study) (White*Knight) 76 5,396 02-05-2014 02:34 PM
Last Post: legend
  The difference between Scientific Theory and Creation Theory Hitcher 145 9,646 01-08-2014 05:38 AM
Last Post: Herminator
  Theory of Evolution: Science not Religion. Achrelos 82 5,262 09-01-2013 08:50 PM
Last Post: davek121
  Kaleb argues against evolution (and subsets of evolutionary theory) StarStuff 17 1,863 11-02-2011 01:14 PM
Last Post: Arjuna
Toungue Darwins theory of evolution is not observable Unknowable 77 9,409 08-08-2011 01:08 AM
Last Post: Hombre

User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)