No Weaknesses in the Theory of Evolution?

ICR ^ | March 12, 2009 | Frank Sherwin, M.A.

[GodGunsGuts]

No Weaknesses in the Theory of Evolution?

by Frank Sherwin, M.A.*

"There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution." This was the testimony of Eugenie Scott to the Texas State Board of Education in January when the Board was debating new state science curriculum standards.¹ Dr. Scott is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), a watchdog group committed to exposing and ridiculing any group that questions the strange paradigm of Darwinism. Is it true "there are no weaknesses" in this particles-to-people worldview?

Clearly, there is a very real problem with what biological molecules (DNA and proteins) tell the evolutionary scientist, versus what morphology (fossils) says. Evolutionary medical journalist Trish Gura exposed this weakness when addressing a raging debate within evolutionary circles:

[CottShop]

instead of looking down your nose at people you dissagree with, how about backing up your claim and presenting evidnece to support macroevolution, which I am quite confident, will be quickly and efficiently refuted and exposed as the half-baked tomfoolery that it really is. Waving one’s hand, and dismissing everythign with a ‘you don’t undertstand’ isn’t exactly a valid coutnerargument, and is more at home in forums that don’t care to have hteir claims examined in detail and exposed.

So let’s see all the evidences for macroevolution- this ought to be rich. Let’s see hte actual evidence, not some far leaping ASSUMPTIONS based on morphological similarities either!

[FormerRep]

Answer then the question - have you read the original treatise “Origin of Species?” I could explain how popcorn works - but if you’ve already have made up your mind that it works by “magic” then I’m wasting my time.

[ALPAPilot]

Here are the similarities:

1. They are both “historical sciences” as opposed to experimental science. Instead of testing hypotheses by conducting experiments, both use the historical record to confirm their hypotheses.

2. Both have adherents that completely overstate the theory that is not confirmable even by the historic record. Natural Selection and Evolution no more support atheism than they do any other religion. Farting cows have no more impact on global temperatures than aliens in neighboring galaxies.

3. Those “Darwin” athiests: They’re moonbats.

[FormerRep]

Here it is if you care to look:
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=side&pageseq=1

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I'm not familiar with the Dallas Morning News and where their bias lies, but a better article is here.

Along with the usual suspects.

[FormerRep]

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm TO

[ZULU]

“Natural Selection and Evolution no more support atheism than they do any other religion”

Bingo.

Now try to sell that to the Doctrinaire Atheists and the misguided Biblical literalists who sold out to them.

The Bible is theology. Evolution is science. Nether one by itself necessarily contradicts the other, except in the limited visions of certain groups.

[Lucky Dog]

Well if you consider a period of tens of millions of years as 'just appeared' then there are possible environmental, developmental, and ecological changes that might account for it.

The premises of evolution: Organisms are “changed” by random mutations. Those “changed” organisms are either favored or disfavored by the environment and those that are favored survive better than those not so favored (survival of the fittest). Additionally, those more fit organisms are then more available for the next round of mutation and natural selection allowing generationally stepwise accumulation of mutations. Furthermore, according to evolution theory, these random mutations cumulatively produce more complex organisms and greater complexity is favored by the environment, i.e., is more “fit.”

Mutations are permanent changes in the DNA strand. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is the information storage unit for all organisms. Mutations can only fall into three categories: beneficial, detrimental or benign (neutral). Beneficial mutations usually involve increased functionality in the organism. Such an increase in functionality must involve new information content in the DNA. Similarly, detrimental mutations usually involve loss of DNA information.

Observed mutation rates are low and, more importantly, the overwhelming number of mutations are detrimental (according to R.A. Fisher less than one in a million would not be detrimental). Therefore, the odds of a single, beneficial mutations are extremely low.

Stepwise increases in beneficial, organism complexity, i.e., a simple organism mutating into a more complex one, more fit for its environment and that organism, in turn, mutating into a yet more complex organism, and so on, require sequential beneficial mutations. If the chances were a million to one for the first beneficial mutation followed by the same odds in the next generation for the next beneficial mutation, there is now a probability with 12 zeroes after the decimal that the second step will occur. Of course, one must consider the population size, the occurrence rate of the “Goldilocks” mutagen (one strong enough to force a DNA change but not so strong as to kill the organism) and the generation time (how long it takes one generation to reproduce the next one), etc.

More complex organisms tend to have progressively longer generation times than less complex ones thus requiring increased time between mutations. This is just another way of noting that amoebae reproduce faster than dogs or cats. Additionally, more complex organisms generally produce fewer offspring per generation than less complex organisms. Again, just a way of noting that fish parent produce more fry per generation than elephants.

For a single-celled organism to evolve into something like a dog, new DNA information (not random base pairs, but complex and ordered DNA) would need to develop over time that would code for ears, lungs, brain, legs, eyes, etc. That is another way of saying the required number sequential steps of complexity becomes extremely long. If there is a probability, even, with only with 6 zeroes required at each step and even if the population is in the billions with a very low generation time, the likelihood that random mutations could achieve the result is not sufficient given billions of years much less only 10 million years.

Therefore, your implied assertion that enough time passed during the “Cambrian explosion” to account for the appearance of all of the phyla and species shown in the fossil record of this time frame does not appear adequate.

[tpanther]

I don’t think its fair to equate Global Warming and Evolution.

Moonbats support the former, not the latter.

---

It depends on what you’re talking about...the theory or the cult of evolution, and most certainly moonbats support the cult.

BTW...do you know of any moonbats that support creationism, let alone Christianity, marriage exclusively between a man and a woman, etc?

And it’s not exactly helpful for one to side with the godless liberal secular humanist NEA silencing all dissent of darwinism and pretend you’re a conservative.

IN FACT it makes you look alot more like a moonbat!

[tpanther]

So, the Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education says “There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution” and a group of charlatan crackpots called the Institute for Creation Research says there are.
It says a lot about your personal intelligence level when you decide which of those two to trust for the truth about science.

---

Let’s see, we have a group of career politicians like Charlie Rangel that decides laws for the whole country about paying their taxes too...

yes, indeed it does speak to intelligence levels, just not the way you might think.

I don’t care what truth one speaks of, be it scientific, political...I look to my creator for genuine truth.

Most certainly not unobjective human beings.

And worst of all are the ones that think they’re arrogantly above God or are some sort of self-appointed replacement.

[tpanther]

Decisions decisions....who to trust...

E.J. Larson and L. Witham, Leading Scientists Still Reject God, Nature 394(6691):313, 23 July 1998.

or PMSNBC...

hmmmmmmm...

[allmendream]

Rice university did the study not PMSNBC.

And yes, Nature is an excellent source. Too bad you would reject out of hand without understanding 99.9% of its content.

[tpanther]

Lighten up Frances.

[allmendream]

---

Psycho: The name's Francis Soyer, but everybody calls me Psycho. Any of you guys call me Francis, and I'll kill you.

Leon: Ooooooh.

Psycho: You just made the list, buddy. And I don't like nobody touching my stuff. So just keep your meat-hooks off. If I catch any of you guys in my stuff, I'll kill you. Also, I don't like nobody touching me. Now, any of you homos touch me, and I'll kill you.

Sergeant Hulka: Lighten up, Francis.

[tpanther]

btw...Rice University is in Texas right?

I do wonder how liberal this institution of higher learning rates with some of the others, which probably isn’t saying much...but at least it’s not in the northeast, or on the left coast; that much you have going for you! ;)

[allmendream]

Only if I ascribed credibility based entirely upon someones adherence to my political philosophy would Rice Universities locale in a “Red” state be something I had going for me.

I have every confidence that the people at Rice University conducted the study with an eye towards accuracy just as much as the study published in Nature.

The discrepancy between the two studies isn't in “who you trust”, it is from the questions asked and who they asked the questions to.

[1000 silverlings]

Balogna or baloney any way you want to slice it. I left those jobs years ago to start my own businesses and don’t miss those atheist Marxists, Liberals, Lefties and or Commies one bit

[Oztrich Boy]

We are NOT the Judean People’s Front. We’re the People’s Front of Judea!

[tpanther]

It would be interesting to see which one is the more accurate.

Anytime I see “university study” though a red flag goes up.

[Wacka]

For the record, I have a doctorate of philosophy.

Ah, a PhD in BS!