Scientists Speak About Evolution (Quoted Admissions Of Evolutions Condemning Evolutionary Theory

Pathlights ^ | Staff

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

Top flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alonside georgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronuncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reesrved only for professional books and journals.

Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove veolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.

Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin*, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionits cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.

An asterisk (*) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this encyclopedia is based on (see BOOKSTORE), only 164 statements are by creationists.

[judywillow]

If you were talking about computer science you might have a case. But for a supposed branch of science which is mainly done with pickaxes and shovels to have to reinvent itself every ten or twenty years is a joke.

[ml1954]

You are confusing religion with science. Scientists who confuse religion with science are not quacks. They are wrong. Religion is not science and science is not religion.

BTW, I did not equate 'creation science' with 'quackery'. I said it couldn't be elevated to the same level as 'quackery'. Because it is trying to equate religion with science it is more insidious.

And finally, my belief in God has nothing to do with evolution or science. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, a higher being, a prime mover, etc. And it doesn't it try to.

Unfortunately, for over 500 years, some adherents of some religions are always attacking science thinking that science is attacking religion. It does not and never has.

[e p1uribus unum]

Assuming your question is genuine (many here aren't), my degree was in genetics.

The "new information" is kind of like a new word in English. same old letters, "just" a new arrangement and we have, say, "pajamadeen" or "escalator" or "chromosome"

A recently discovered change that adds information is an inversion, meaning a DNA sequence got itself turned around on one chromosome (oversimplification) and has spread since its presence seems to somehow produce both greater fecundity and greater longevity.

Another change might produce no visible effect, or something harmful, or something that seems useless now but possibly beneficial later on

[munchtipq]

Maybe I don't understand what you're saying. What kind of observations does evolution predict that we're not seeing?

To be honest, I think that evolution would only meet the conditions you describe if the environment were constant. Since it is most decidedly not, due to the interdependence of species, and also due to global environmental changes (e.g. ice ages), I don't think evolution could be described as a steady-state process. I may be wrong, and this is not a scientific opinion, but I would need more convincing to see evolution as a steady-state phenomenon.

Even then, though, the calculation you describe would be interesting, because we could assume that evolution would probably work at about the same rate on average in any environment, since environmental changes are most likely very slow anyhow. You're assuming that the rate will come out to be something observable, of course. What if it comes out to one every 300 years? We haven't been observing species all that closely for 300 years yet. And then, do you include bacteria that become resistant to various medicines? Could that be considered a new species and the old an extinct one?

I'm not supposing answers to these questions. I don't know them. If the rate of speciation comes out to one every 10 years and we're not seeing it, then evolutionary theory is going to have to change or be replaced or whatever needs to be done, but I can't say I've seen any such calculations, so I'll withhold judgement until I do.

[Dimensio]

Pickaxes and shovels? Do you honestly think that DNA is observed that way?

As for other scientific theories that had to reinvent themselves, look to Newtonian physics, which underwent a rather drastic overhaul in the first half of the 20th century.

You also mentioned Calculus, which is simply a way of manipulating numbers. It's a math, not a science, and as such not subject to the sudden changes brought about by new evidence as a science. A mathematician may find a more efficient means of calculating complex equations, but the old methods will still be perfectly valid for all applicable circumstances as before and (unless the issue is finding approximate values) will not achieve results any less correct than the new methods.

[Dimensio]

I just went back and re-checked your initial posting, and I discovered that it's a bit more dishonest and deceptive than I'd originally realised.

You compared the changing nature of a scientific theory, evolution, with tangible inventions such as the airplane, electric lightbulb and the steam engine. This is an apples and oranges comparison, a logical fallacy. The inventions that you named continue to work because they operate through the fundamental properties of the universe, which -- as best we can tell -- remain constant. Now, our understanding of these properties -- the theories behind the inventions -- may be incomplete or even flawed. The fact that our inventions work is an indication that our understanding is good enough to harness the properties to our benefit, but it is still possible that we've "missed" something or that we've got some of the underlying elements wrong.

The properties behind evolution are also unchanging and constant. Evolution works today just like it did one-hundred and fifty years ago. What has changed is our understanding of the theory. No one is suggesting that the fundamental properties of biology have somehow changed and that is the reason for the revision of theory. Your attempt to compare the changing nature of the theory of evolution with the fact that the steam engine has worked since its creation without requiring a change to its design is patently dishonest.

[Quix]

Oh there's all kinds of quality words and facts that have leaked, flowed out of quality minds and discussioins.

But the high priests of the RELIGION OF SCIENCE and the SUB-CULT the RELIGION OF EVOLUTION

are very good at preventing any contrary views being published in their dogma publications.

It's been so throughout the history of "science" for 100's of years. Nothing new in that.

It's just a bit amazing that in the face of so much contrary evidence, the narrow, rigid, blind dogma reigns so supreme.

[Quix]

Love it.

THX. Great comment.

[Quix]

Well said.

[bondserv]

Creationism/ID is no more scientific that pink elves dancing on the moon.

That's what the Clintonistas were saying as they pulled the W's off of the keyboards.

We conservatives see a need for a changing of the guard. The Adults will be back in control of science shortly. Hold on to your seat or you might be Gored. Jesse HighJackson and Al NotsoSharpton have a better spiel than you guys.

The reckoning will be sweet as the discredited are sent packing. Not by fascistic over-religiosity, rather capitalistic competition of ideas in a free market that is seeking truth to propel us into the future.

The tenured are beginning to shake in their boots, like the social programs of California in a face down with the fiscally responsible Terminator. The New Hard Science departments are going to be hard on those that have been pulling the wool. The means must be justified, or it will be the end.

I am just hoping this comes down before I send my kids to University, where common sense is currently on hiatus. :-)

[bondserv]

The "new information" is kind of like a new word in English. same old letters, "just" a new arrangement and we have, say, "pajamadeen" or "escalator" or "chromosome"

So simple, amazing.

You assume that the process of RMNS can program new and more complex creatures at a staggering rate of success. We are talking about millions of highly sophisticated functionally complicated systems.

These systems have self-replicating mechanisms, self-healing mechanisms, reproductive mechanisms, fuel refining digestive mechanisms, a multiplicity of self-cleaning mechanisms, highly refined oxygen filtering mechanisms, waste disposal mechanisms, cooling mechanisms, heating mechanisms, nervous systems, highly sophisticated coverings over structures that attach the energy transfer systems together.

The thousands of different ways that life handles these complex tasks, makes the idea even more absurd. Because we see some shifts in genetic material, doesn't mean nature becomes a systems producing guru by adding the magic element of time.

Consider a CPU that can drive a car 60 mph on a winding cliff faced road, while singing a melody, while discerning the wind blowing over every exposed hair, while regulating the motion of a 2000 pound moving object using precise predictive visual stimuli, while cooperatively leaning every muscle of the body into a turn, while recognizing the pitch of the road to calculate the minute steering and braking adjustments, while responding to memories of how the suspension will react at precise angles of momentum, while enjoying the millions of hues the sunlight reflecting produces on a multifaceted ocean.

The production of one of these systems has not been shown to be true. In fact it goes against every common sensical concept of chemistry, biology, physics and mathematical information theory.

[judywillow]

Pickaxes and shovels? Do you honestly think that DNA is observed that way?

Fossils in fact ARE observed that way.

[Thatcherite]

Cars, and other human designed objects, fail the biological common ancestory tests in numerous ways. By attempting to use them as an analogy you expose your ignorance of how biologists test for common ancestory. For a start cars do not exhibit any kind of nested hierarchy, homologies etc etc etc.

If biologists tried to contstruct an autogenetic tree for cars they'd be unable to because the characteristics of vehicle models do not fall into such a classification. All the characteristics keep crossing over between car "species" so what you'd get is a spiderweb, not a tree. You have unwittingly highlighted an important argument that the biological world is a single tree of life; the very fact that classification is possible.

[Thatcherite]

I haven't seen one yet.

[Thatcherite]

How do you know ongoing macro-evolution when you see it? (changes occur in tiny increments, the biosphere is loaded with organisms that have imperfectly or partially formed functions, how would we spot tiny improvements?)

How do you know speciation when you see it? (when we identify a new insect species as we do thousands of times a year how do we know whether it speciated last week, or 3 million years ago?)

Your arguments are ill-thought-out bunkum. I expect that you got them from a creationist website. They have that kind of quality.

[ThinkPlease]

The tenured are beginning to shake in their boots, like the social programs of California in a face down with the fiscally responsible Terminator. The New Hard Science departments are going to be hard on those that have been pulling the wool. The means must be justified, or it will be the end.

Gee, I'll have to pass this information on where I work, because here, it's business as usual. In fact, business hasn't been better, we're hiring 20% more faculty! We are certainly not hiring any creationists here, either, all people who are expanding the boundaries of standard models.

[neutrality]

The only time such an argument won't be fallacious is when the consensus is one of individual authorities and thus the argument meets the same basic standards required of the general Argument from Authority. For example, an argument about the nature of lung cancer based upon the published opinions of most cancer researchers would carry real weight and would not be fallacious.

[e p1uribus unum]

I am assuming nothing.

I described how DNA works, giving a specific recent example.

Whether or not it's against common sense, it is real. Sort of like a platypus.

[bobdsmith]

"I would accept that as an observation supporting the current theory."

You earlier said that observed speciation was an unfulfilled prediction of evolution. Therefore if speciation was observed wouldn't this logically make it a fulfilled prediction?

"I also accept the fact that none have been observed as very damning to the theory in its current form."

Well some have been observed given the short time of observation (less than 150 years). There are some here specation events

Before you dismiss them as ambiguous examples, which they are, consider that "species" is an arbitary category invented by man. Noone has a cast iron definition of what consitutes a species that fits nature 100%. Animal populations on earth do not fall evenly into natural groups and cannot be arranged as such.

For example two populations of the same species can be effectively isolated just because they choose not to interbreed, or perhaps they only have a 2% chance of sucessful breeding if they mate, but does this define them as seperate species? It obviously depends on which man-made definition you use.

Any observations of speciation in the last century will be slight changes in ability to interbreed. Whether such slight changes constitute speciation depends on your definition. It will take a few generations more for these isolated populations to diverge (if there is pressure for them to do so) to a level that everyone's definition agrees they are seperate species.

The best evidence for speciation at such an indisputable level has not been observed happening in just 100 years, but has taken place over a longer time before anyone started looking. Ring species are living examples of two populations that cannot interbreed that have the living transitionals arranged geographically in order between them. This shows that genetic changes over time can eventually lead to definite reproductive isolation. Ie there is no genetic barrier to prevent genetic divergance eventually leading to speciation.

"There are many evolutionary biologists who agree. Which is why you keep hearing about punctuated equilibrium." Under punctuated equilibrium you still get speciation. The difference between p.e and gradualism is not to do with whether or not speciation happens or has been observed.

[bobdsmith]

"You assume that the process of RMNS can program new and more complex creatures at a staggering rate of success. We are talking about millions of highly sophisticated functionally complicated systems."

This is not an ungrounded assumption given the tried and tested ability of RM + NS to design, and the millions of years of time available for it to have done it in. On the otherhand assuming that it is impossible before understanding the full picture is a bad assumption to make.