Posted on 12/05/2013 10:54:11 AM PST by fishtank
Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution.
ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?
DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?
HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry -- a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?
VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry -- even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?
ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?
PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?
DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?
MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution -- even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?
HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident -- when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?
EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact -- even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?
Disclaimer: I do NOT agree with Wells about spiritual issues (e.g. he’s a Moonie...)
But these are classic questions.
Pitiful.
Disclaimer: I do NOT agree with Wells about spiritual issues (e.g. he’s a Moonie...)
But these are classic questions.
I bumped into this link here:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/thank_goodness_079651.html
Talk about a bogus talking point. There were no amphibians, reptiles, birds or mammals during the Cambrian. No land animals. Those came later.
And no fruit fly has ever evolved into an elephant.
If life was randomly created from primordial soup, was it just ONE single celled creature or TRILLIONS upon TRILLIONS of single celled creatures that suddenly appeared?
And if they were all gay they’d have to start all over again.
and most excellent and to the point
If only ONE living cell were evolved, then the WHOLE of evolution rides on that ONE cell surviving and reproducing and then those cells reproducing and so on.
If ONE cell evolved to life, how did it know TO and HOW to reproduce? Obviously it couldn't have been gay, otherwise it couldn't reproduce.
If gay were part of evolution, how many cells were formed before hetero cells formed that were finally able to copulate and carry on?
(Yes there is a level of sarcasm involved here)
every time they try the primordial soup then only way they get some results is by the human monitoring the experiment changing the conditions….eg changing temperatures or pressures or putting in clay to absorb some proteins and then sucking that out the clay so it doesn’t get burned up.
Evolution requires more faith and imagination than the Truth.
And if the first two “evolved” humans were gay it would be back to the drawing board.
Not a single citation to a credible source for any of the assertions made in your questions. The problem with creation science is that it refuses to adhere to the rules of science.
Another that really stumps them -
FLORA: Why is it that textbooks portray at least four different evolutionary plant lines that emerged from prehistoric green algae, while such evolutionary sequence is totally absent in the fossil record?
“If life evolved from primordial soup in an uncontrolled, unintelligent, random environment, shouldn’t man, with all his knowledge and technology, be able to recreate the events in a controlled, intelligent and deliberate environment?”
Oh, absolutely! I’m running such an experiment right now! Actually, a much simpler experiment because I’m not trying to create organic life, but merely a personal computer, which is a far, far simpler device in terms of complexity.
I’m actually aiming to make a Panasonic CF-53 laptop computer with Windows 7 operating system. I’ve filled a large beaker full of the elemental powders from which the laptop and operating system are formed, put some sea water in, and then bombarded the laptop soup in the beaker with simulated lightening. I expect that a digital chip will spontaneously form eventually and then will evolve after being bombarded by cosmic rays for some period of time.
I’m not too sure how long it will take to get my laptop that way, but am quite optimistic. I figure if organic life can spontaneously form in a similar fashion, a mere PC will take much less time.
#11 Why can’t scientists show us the monkey men? :-)
You’d have a better chance with Linux.
All interesting questions.
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.