It is my understanding the great weakness of evolutionary theory is that the mechanism for evolution has never been found. Random genetic mutations didn't pan out. I don't doubt there have been changes in species. But scientists have not been able to explain how or why. Because they are unwilling to look for any "intelligent design" or reason behind the universe. They want everything to be pure physical chance.
Careful there. If you DARE to question the theory of evolution you will be denigrated as an ignorant, slope-headed, bible thumping fool.
The most obvious refutation of Darwinian theory...
In the years since this theory has been presented, nobody has been able to demonstrate the evolution of a single species from one to another.
They can show natural selection *within* a species, but I don't think anyone argues about that point.
Take some horse-flies, put them in a container full of fruit and lets see them evolve into fruit flies... THAT would be the kind of proof we have not seen.
She said it, I didn't. Plus, think of all of those PhD careers that will go down the drain if evolution were found to be "unscientific."
Not exactly breaking news. I have yet to meet an evolutionist who will state unequivocally and without reservation that they cannot be wrong.
The debate over evolution should be split into two pieces. First of all, is the fossil record old and spread over millions of years, or does the poster believe in a young earth model?
And if there is agreement that the fossil record is old, then there can be a debate on how species form within that framework. Because if one poster believes in a young earth model and the other does not, you aren't gonna agree on anything because your worldviews are completely different. Too much of the debate on FR tends to skip the first step, which means both sides are yelling at each other over completely different premises.
The evolutionary worldview is not in trouble. Go ask GW Bush's science advisor, who said a few weeks ago that ID is not a theory.
The astonishing and irreducible complexity of various cellular structures has not yet successfully been described, let alone explained.So, if IC hasn't even "successfully been described, let alone explained", then why is everyone so impressed with Behe's book??? He didn't successfully describe what it is he claims is the problem!
Or, as Vade has pointed out elsewhere, the mystery of IC is so mysterious, the IC advocates can't even successfully describe the mystery itself. Now that's mysterious!
There are a lot of unknowns and assumptions in evolution. Of course science is too politicized. You can't question the assumptions. Same thing with global warming. You can drive a Mack Truck through all the unknowns and assumptions, but to raise questions about them gets you thrown out.
bttt
Darwin's theory makes no tight quantitative predictions at all.
"Darwin's" theory predicts that new fossils found will be more developed in newer rock strata. Perhaps millions of fossils have been cataloged since then, the prediction has held.
Field studies attempting to measure natural selection inevitably report weak-to-nonexistent selection effects.
I don't know what to make of this, a link would be nice. My field studies report strong natural selection effects for deer that can't hide during deer season.
Darwin's theory is open at one end, because there is no plausible account for the origins of life.
"Darwin's" theory does'nt address the origins of life. It is not a theory of everything.
The astonishing and irreducible complexity of various cellular structures has not yet successfully been described, let alone explained.
If it has'nt been discribed then the above statement is as valid as 'The astonishing and irreducible complexity of thunder has not yet successfully been discribed, let alone explained.' was 100 years ago. You do get the point of that don't you? (my understanding is we pretty much understand thunder today, lightning on the other hand is about as well understood as evolution.)
A great many species enter the fossil record trailing no obvious ancestors, and depart leaving no obvious descendants.
Examples of the former (no ancestors) should be easy for you to link to then. The latter (no descendants) is obvious.
Where attempts to replicate Darwinian evolution on the computer have been successful, they have not used classical Darwinian principles, and where they have used such principles, they have not been successful.
Again the statement makes little sense. What are classical Darwinian principles? This is science (on evolutions side), we are allowed to change our theorys as new data comes in.
Tens of thousands of fruit flies have come and gone in laboratory experiments, and every last one of them has remained a fruit fly to the end, all efforts to see the miracle of speciation unavailing.
Wrong time scale, and speciation has been forced with lower forms.
The remarkable similarity in the genome of a great many organisms suggests that there is at bottom only one living system; but how then to account for the astonishing differences between human beings and their near relatives -- differences that remain obvious to anyone who has visited a zoo?
More babble. How do creationists account for the similarity of behavior of their little darlings (Homo-simians) on the playground and apes in the zoo?
Ping!
I'm not going to waste the time easily shooting down the points, just bring up one fact: It is the only scientific theory we have for what we've observed. Come up with a competing scientific theory, then we'll talk. Until then, scientists will keep working to further develop the current theory.
The way I understand it, the accepted age of the universe is simply not long enough to provide for the complexity of the life forms we have here to have developed through Darwinian evolution. Not even a virus, let alone a human being.
Thus the theory of "Quantum Reality" which I understand as infinite, parallel realities existing side by side (A concept I find much harder to accept than that of a creator!). So with this theory we now have an infinite time span for life to develop out of a chemical pool or soup, and evolve into all the life forms we see today. A lot of top scientists accept this - Stephen Hawking, for one.
To me, frankly, it sounds like nonsense. If macro evolution really depends on this theory, then I think it should be taught along with macro evolution as soon as macro evolution is taught. If you are going to teach a kid, as fact, that life began from non-life, and all of the life forms that exist now and have ever existed evolved from that very first life that itself came from non-life, then also teach them that your explanation only works if you accept the concept of Quantum Reality. Then let them decide if after having that explained to them, they feel comfortable accepting Darwinian evolution without further consideration or not.
It seems to me that Quantum Reality is the dirty little secret of macro evolution. I do not understand why it is not the centerpiece of every discussion of evolution.
One of many sites on Quantum Reality: http://www.quantum.bowmain.com/Quantum_Reality.htm
As much Creationists who stubbornly hold onto the myth of Adam and Eve.
Lem'me guess;
It's just not fair?
We didn't get a good start?
It's to confusing?
What about orphans?
It'll never play in Hoboken.
It doesn't explain Bryan Boitano.