Problems of Evolution

Independent Individualist ^ | Apr 28, 2008 | Pamela Hewitt

[Soliton]

But it’s still the same “kind” of organism

Chimps and humans are the same kind of organism

[Hank Kerchief]

“Off the top of my head: there have actually been dozens of speciation events in the lab involving species of Drosophila (”fruit flies”).”

Nope. There’s never been one. Read the article. Drosophila melanogaster is discussed completely.

Hank

[ml/nj]

This is an interesting article: I pulled a few paragraphs which either state the obvious or said something new to me or both:

Since evolution posits that changes are acquired and passed on to offspring, only changes in the germ line DNA, i.e. sperm and ova, have any significance. Changes to somatic cells are irrelevant to the theory. Thus, the unit of significance is not time, but generations.

It is stated by scientists today, that either humans "evolved" from previous, different animals by random mutations in DNA, or we were made by a God. It is never considered that both may be wrong, and there could be other explanations for speciation, a different explanation for the "fossil record." This is due as much to the blind virtually religious fervor of evolutionists as to the same religious dogmatism of the creationists. If one does not accept that something is possible, one does not, after all, go looking for it.

There is no genetic evidence which demonstrates the final skeletal form is purely and solely genetically driven. And the skeletal form is the basis of all of paleontology. The evolutionists are in fact basing their entire "theory" on a mistaken link—that of genetics with skeletal form.

And fossil remains have been found in strata dated at millions of years old; they are identical to Homo sapiens sapiens. That is, us. Hundreds of examples exist. Mary Leakey, of Olduvai Gorge fame, claimed to have found a footprint identical in every respect to that of modern man, in strata identified as being 3.6 million years old. A huge variety of human artefacts, flint tools and bones identical to homo sapiens sapiens have been found in strata confidendently dated to the mid-Pliocene - 3.5 million years ago. A Professor of Geology found, in the lower Pliocene strata of Castelnodolo, near Brescia, a complete human skeleton indistinguishable from that of a modern woman. The staining in the bones, the depth and number of different strata above the skeleton and its position made it very highly unlikely it could have been a more recent burial. The inescapable conclusion is that this speciment of homo sapiens sapiens was walking around 3.5 million years ago.

(The only problem with this last quoted paragraph is, as I understand it, the dating of the rocks is based upon an evolutionary timescale, so that if "evolution" is not correct then the geologic timescale based upon it would have no basis.)

ML/NJ

[MrB]

Not.

[CarrotAndStick]

Definitions of theology on the Web:

• the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth
• a particular system or school of religious beliefs and teachings

[MrB]

Whenever you address, or even think about, the philosophical questions of existance, including the existance of a deity, you are engaging in a theology.

Regardless of how the SH’s and atheists are claiming a neutral position, the desire is to TEACH THEIR THEOLOGY to kids in public schools.

[CarrotAndStick]

Definitions of religion on the Web:

• a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
• a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices pertaining to supernatural power.
• beliefs and practices regarding supernatural beings, power, and forces.

[weatherwax]

It’s very late where I live, I’ve just seen this, and Im on my way to bed. But you got the wrong person here buddy. Never have I said what you have attributed to me, and I have not been a full time writer ever in my life (god how I wish).
Interesting, that apparantly to Americans, being a nurse means one is too dumb to offer an academic arguement!!

[Hootowl]

Yes, and of all of these “speciation events,” which have resulted in new species? Answer: None, unless you define “new species” as a fruit fly that is slightly different than other fruit flies. Thing is, Alter Kaker, there isn’t widespread agreement on what constitutes a “species,” not even the inability to interbreed, and the dogma of Darwinism has almost choked off any “heretical” research.

[Soliton]

Scientists force evolution in the lab
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11147751/

Artificial Life Experiments Show How Complex Functions Can Evolve
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030508075843.htm

Evolution in the Laboratory: Up Close and Personal
http://www.science-spirit.org/archive_cm_detail.php?new_id=84

To Test Evolution, Press the ‘Undo’ Button
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0DEFD61731F93BA25750C0A9659C8B63

[Alter Kaker]

Yes, and of all of these “speciation events,” which have resulted in new species? Answer: None, unless you define “new species” as a fruit fly that is slightly different than other fruit flies.

A species is a population that cannot produce fertile offspring with another population. A number of new species have been created in the lab, populations which are reproductively isolated from their parent populations.

[Soliton]

I was referring to the author of the piece. Is that you? If so I guessed right! Just a nurse! “involved in genetics” Ha! I would love to debate you if you are the author.

[MrB]

“a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices pertaining to supernatural power.”

Thanks!

That defines atheism as a religion.
“My _belief_ is that there isn’t a God (supernatural power), and I will exhibit _practices_ in my life accordingly.”

[CarrotAndStick]

Supernatural?

NOTHING in evolution or atheism is attributed to anything supernatural.

You have a very interesting method of “argument”. I’ll play along.

[Hank Kerchief]

“The only problem with this last quoted paragraph is, as I understand it, the dating of the rocks is based upon an evolutionary timescale, so that if “evolution” is not correct then the geologic timescale based upon it would have no basis.”

It’s true that the geological time scale is based on the discovery of the differentiation of fossils in different geological layers, but the argument remains the same. Whatever “explanation” is given for the different fossil layers, if human fossils are found in the same layers as fossils claimed to be prehuman, that is evidence that contradicts the theory. Maybe there is an explanation, but the present method of dealing with contradictory evidence is—well—just ignore it.

Hank

[CarrotAndStick]

"... if human fossils are found in the same layers as fossils claimed to be prehuman..."

Interesting.

Do you have a link to a site describing this?

[allmendream]

“The so called “Theory of Evolution” was first proposed by Darwin based on observable, physiological characteristics. This was seized upon as an escape from the dominance of religious thought, which had held that man was a being made, and thus owned, by a mystical God.”

1) the theory is called “The Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection” and why “so called”? it IS a Scientific theory.

2) Darwin was not the first to put forth a “Theory of Evolution”, he was just the first one to get it correct.

3) This was “seized upon” because it elegantly explained natural phenomena using natural means (we like to call it Science). Darwin was still a religious man when he formulated his theory.

4) Only the weak of faith find that denial of Scientific evidence is critical for their continued faith. Most Scientists in the U.S.A. accept the theory of Natural Selection; and most Scientists in the U.S.A. are people of faith.

Am I supposed to do this throughout this entire nonsensical spiel???? Translate it out of ‘Idiot-ese’?

[babygene]

ping

[Guyin4Os]

"I believe the fins may be remains from the time when dolphins' ancient ancestors lived on land," said Seiji Osumi, of Tokyo's Institute of Cetacean Research.

So that little girl in India who was born with two faces is a remnant of when Humans were two-faced?

[allmendream]

Being a nurse doesn't QUALIFY one, in and of itself, to make an academic argument on Evolution or Genetics. Proper urinary catheter placement perhaps, but not Evolution or Genetics. Nothing better than an educated layman, and the obvious language appealing to authority without giving actual qualification shows that the author knows it. And the writing shows that the author is obviously an ILL educated layman on the subject. Most of what the author thinks they know just isn't so.