Posted on 02/22/2016 10:38:03 AM PST by EveningStar
Given its huge success in describing the natural world for the past 150 years, the theory of evolution is remarkably misunderstood. In a recent episode of the Australian series of "I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here", former cricket star Shane Warne questioned the theory - asking "if humans evolved from monkeys, why haven't today's monkeys evolved"?
Similarly, a head teacher from a primary school in the UK recently stated that evolution is a theory rather than a fact. This is despite the fact that children in the UK start learning about evolution in Year 6 (ten to 11-year-olds), and have further lessons throughout high school. While the theory of evolution is well accepted in the UK compared with the rest of the world, a survey in 2005 indicated that more than 20% of the country's population was not sure about it, or did not accept it.
In contrast, there are not many people questioning the theory of relativity, or studies on the acceptance of the theory of relativity; possibly reflecting an acceptance that this is a matter for physicists to settle. Many studies have tried to determine why evolution is questioned so often by the general public, despite complete acceptance by scientists. Although no clear answer has been found, I suspect the common misconceptions described below have something to do with it.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearscience.com ...
Evolution is heavily supported by species modification data. Even dog breeding or plant breeding proves the basic concepts.
But species jumping, that’s not been proven at all.
Confusing those two concepts is how the game is played.
Those of us that work with very large numbers understand how it is not even possible for random changes to DNA to create where we are now. A human DNA strand is estimated to be about 3.2 billion base pairs. That represents a number of (2)^3,000,000,000.
Compare that to the estimated number of atoms in the universe (10)^81
It’s equally preposterous to compare the theory of evolution to the theory of relativity in their general acceptance. Relativity is fairly difficult to understand without a pretty good grounding in physics, while evolution can be summed up rather more succinctly and simply. And, most important, relativity hasn’t been politicized like evolution has, and hasn’t been co-opted to disprove the existence of God. Actually, the opposite, if one reads some of Einstein’s statements on the subject of God. Finally, proponents of relativity don’t try by any means possible to silence any dissenters - if there are any - or to pass laws criminalizing opposing views to be examined in our children’s schools.
LOL!
This is better described as Breeding rather than evolution.
In bacteria growing resistant to anti-biotics we are inadvertently breeding a variety/strain of bacteria resistant to our anti-biotics.
The new strain is not a newly evolved species of bacteria. The new strain is still capable of reproducing sexually with the old strain. It will still infect the same host and produce the same disease.
Evolution will remain a theory until someone produces a test to prove its validity.
So far mankind with our unnatural selection have yet to produce a new species. Even after at least ten thousand years of selective breeding of the dog is still a wolf under all of that variety of shapes and sizes.
So I don't give Evolution much hope of shedding the theory moniker any time soon.
The author is a moron.
Many aspects of Relativity have been objectively tested and proven. It also has been applied to real-world things. For example, GPS satellites have to account for time dilation in order for GPS to work.
“Evolution” is like “Man Caused Global Warming”: neither has been objectively proven. For example, there is not one experimental example of one species evolving into another species. (Micro-evolution, for example adaptation of coloration, has been experimentally shown, but this is entirely different from evolving into another species.)
Also, even though aspects of relativity have been proven, it’s still called the THEORY of Relativity. Why? Because some aspects have not been fully proven. Ergo, calling evolution a theory is actually giving the HYPOTHESIS of Evolution too much credit. (Now, evolution may be correct, but that has not been proven.)
Again, the author is a moron - a scientifically illiterate one at that.
I'm a Baptist, and I have taken that position in the past. and as a matter of discussion with others, I have no real problem with assuming evolution to be true.
HOWEVER. Against this is 1 Corinthians 15 where it says 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive There are a number of other verses mentioning Adam by name in the NT
And, as the verse explains, what is the need of a Savior if man did not inherit a sin nature?
Nevertheless, I believe the bible is God's inerrant Word, and I also believe that Science seeks the truth, and the truth cannot contradict the truth. How to reconcile these positions is above my own abilities, and I am content to await God's personal explanation of the matter to me.
the neck of a giraffe can be explained by natural selection. less competition for leaves at those heights on a tree gave giraffes a better chance of survival.
what can’t be explained is how/why a fish evolved into a giraffe. that’s where evolution makes the leap to untestable theory.
Adaptation is heavily supported, evolution is not.
You can selectively breed dogs for desired traits, and the end product, over time, is a dog with those desired traits.
Now, breed dogs, selectively, to obtain Non-dogs. Good luck with that.
The only fact about evolution is its “facts” are 90+% speculation, with little or no demonstrable proof to support them. Facts do not have to be defended by forbidding(or even outlawing) the questioning of the accepted conclusions. When opposing views or evidence is forbidden... that’s not science, it’s anti-science.
I base this on the observations of a highly respected marine biologist.
Yeah, I should have said adaptation. Evolution is generally the species jumping thing.
I actually started working on a paper about that. Short version: if every nanometer of the Earth’s biosphere had a strand of DNA of the proper length in it, and every stand underwent one mutation per nanosecond, the time it would take for there to be a 1% chance of arriving at a viable human DNA strand is many septillions (or more) of times longer than the universe has existed.
It may have been a Seinfeld quote.
i take the attitude that the Bible was written for the audience of its time.
“God created Adam” was more easily understood than “God created a small creature too small to see and over the course of 2 billion years that creature and its progeny changed every generation until eventually human beings came into existence. Adam was the very first human being”.
to me it doesn’t matter which is true. they are both valid explanations to their audiences and both require faith.
atheists and secular humanists are really pushing scientism, which is the belief that science can explain everything. but this belief will eventually fail because some questions are beyond the scope of what science can test. i can put the raw materials for life in a petry dish and set it outside in a thunderstorm every day for a billion years, but there is no guarantee that life will eventually spring forth from it. that question (how did life begin?) is beyond the scope of what scientism can answer. there are other such questions (does the universe have a beginning? if so, who/what created the universe? etc.). smart people accept this essential truth.
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy” - Hamlet
“I base this on the observations of a highly respected marine biologist.”
Excellent. I find it a perfectly reasonable hypothesis.
Now answer my questions. It’s not a trick.
What predictions does the hypothesis make that are measurable?
What would confirm the hypothesis? What would be evidence against it?
:)
I think if Darwin had the knowledge of microbiology available to him, he would have had a much different view. Even then, Darwin never argued that evolution led to new species.
If I post the 10 stupidest criticisms of evolution, they would certainly be dumb and easy to poke holes in. However, listing those would in no way answer the 10 smartest criticisms of evolution.
also complicated by the fact that macro-evolutionists embrace the idea that some important mutations may well have been one-in-a-million “lucky” mutations. it’s not science if it’s not reproducable by the scientific method. macro-evolutionists use this loophole to exempt themselves from the strict rules of the scientific method. funny how that works, huh?
https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/accidents-human-evolution/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.