McBell
Admiral Obvious
Really?
Please be so kind as to present some of it.
Please be so kind as to show us your math.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Holes in Darwin's Theory?
- Thread starter Reverend Rick
- Start date
Please be so kind as to present some of it.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
I agree.
However, I do not blame their DNA.
I blame their lack of being exposed to anything more in a manner that would cause them to take interest.
Me Myself
Back to my username
There is no reasonable way to calculate such odds. We just have what we can see and measure, and as for it, it is clear there has been evilution.
The consequence is that we'll be fitter as a species. "Fitness" is determined by two - and only two - criteria:
1. Ability to perpetuate our DNA into the next generation (either directly by reproducing or indirectly by kin selection)
2. Ability to adapt to future changes in the environment.
Anyone that survives and reproduces meets criterion #1. Criterion #2 is determined by the level of diversity in the population.
There is no objective "better" or "worse" in evolution. The criteria that will lead to "fitness" change over time. Strength might be an advantage now, since it allows someone to do things that weaker individuals or species can't do... but in the future with a slightly different environment with scarcer food, maybe strength would be a detriment, since it creates higher energy demands and the weaker can get by with less.
And the ability to adapt is very important. A good illustrative example is the banana: it's been selected to the point that it's nearly a monoculture, and because of this, the whole species is VERY vulnerable. It only survives thanks to extraordinary experts from humans, and even with those, many are predicting that the banana will go extinct in the near future: The Banana Problem | Food Republic
Look at it this way: all of the tools in a species' "adaptation toolbox" can be found in the DNA of the members of the species. The more tools in the toolbox - i.e. the more variation and diversity within the species - the more likely it is that when change comes, the species will have the tool they need to adapt to it.
It sometimes feels like my disc brake spreader just takes up space in my work bench drawer, but on the rare occasions when I do need it, no other tool will do. People you think are "unfit" now may have the adaptation that we'll need for some problem our species will encounter in the future.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Of course there are holes in the Darwinian Evolution.
Currently, the theory isn't the "Darwinian" at all, but a Neo-Darwinian that began in the 50's, 60's.
And right now, there are some other questions about Evolution that might lead to a revision of Neo-Darwinism too.
But the problems and questions are not related to the two you mentioned above because they're not in question anymore.
---
Holes in Darwin's Theory:
* How coral atolls evolve. The primordial soup probably was different than Darwin thought.
Holes in Neo-Darwinian Theory:
* I think epigenetics is fairly new and was rejected before
* Punctuated equilibrium kind of throw the "slow gradual process" out the window.
(I think I got above right. And my understanding there are other similar things, but nothing challenging evolution as such. It works. It's a fact. Exactly how it works in detail, that's still being ironed out.)
Last edited:
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Amoungst the survivors perhaps.
I suspect that those who survived are in agreement that surviving is "better" than not surviving.
I touched on that later in my post.
What I meant there was that we can't even say that characteristics like intelligence and strength help evolutionary "fitness", because every trait has tradeoffs, and those tradeoffs will be either worth it or not depending on the environment.
And I feel that is a little-remarked yet important part of the motivation for rejecting evolution as a theory.
Never mind the origin of species, it may sound heretical or worse to suggest that humans are not destined or even meant for some sort of grandiose destiny that begins with ensured perpetual survival regardless of the environment.
Quite irrational an expectation IMO, but I can sort of see how one can grow attached to it.
outhouse
Atheistically
The only valid points, are if we pick on the hypothesis when it was first places out there.
Since then science has corrected many original mistakes.
But the basic structure is as solid as gravity
NO
There is ZERO evidence beyond imagination for such.
Speciation has been observed, and no divine hand is needed.
You would have to define said intelligent being.
Then define how he could do something like that in nature.
And when you invoke a god concept that has no universal acceptance as existing in reality, you will have failed.
Man defines the god concept differently, I posit that is due to the difference within mans imagination.
The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
"Darwin's theory" is often just a casual reference to the modern theories of evolution.
I think people refer to it this way so they can make it appear that it is the idea of one man, and not the the conclusion of over 150 years of scientific research.
For some perhaps, but not for me.fantôme profane;3490102 said:
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
1st Law of Thermodynamics.
-More or less that energy cannot be created or destroyed only transfered.
No issue here with evolution as it has nothing that contradicts the theories.
2nd law of thermodynamics
-The point they are making is that it boils down to closed systems only becoming more chaotic rather than ordered.
This is the argument made that because the universe is a closed system (1st law) that the universe should not be able to create enuogh order for evolution or some nonsense. However they don't incorporate the other laws of the universe into the equation and leave it with only thermodynamics. What of gravity? Electromagnetism? Dark energy? The weak nuclear force? I can go on and on and on. These forces (mainly gravity and dark energy) force the universe into several psuedo closed systems wherein order can be created on base levels before morphing into more complex chemistry.
So neither of the laws of thermodynamics actually counter Evolution in any way.
3) No missing link.
This is simply a lie. Its been repeated and repeated but its not true. It hasn't been true for over a hundred years. We have a very detailed fossil record of our human journey from the common ancestor between us and the chimpanzee. We also have several other fossils that help us map the evolution of other species and along with new evidence that comes to light each year, paints a more vivid picture of how we evolved.
So there really aren't any holes in the theory. At least not the ones that are most commonly pointed out. Most problems and holes in evolution are on specific things such as the article Shermain brings up all the time about the evolution of the bat wing. We don't know specifically how its done and its debated. It is unanimous that it occured via evolution however.
-More or less that energy cannot be created or destroyed only transfered.
No issue here with evolution as it has nothing that contradicts the theories.
2nd law of thermodynamics
-The point they are making is that it boils down to closed systems only becoming more chaotic rather than ordered.
This is the argument made that because the universe is a closed system (1st law) that the universe should not be able to create enuogh order for evolution or some nonsense. However they don't incorporate the other laws of the universe into the equation and leave it with only thermodynamics. What of gravity? Electromagnetism? Dark energy? The weak nuclear force? I can go on and on and on. These forces (mainly gravity and dark energy) force the universe into several psuedo closed systems wherein order can be created on base levels before morphing into more complex chemistry.
So neither of the laws of thermodynamics actually counter Evolution in any way.
3) No missing link.
This is simply a lie. Its been repeated and repeated but its not true. It hasn't been true for over a hundred years. We have a very detailed fossil record of our human journey from the common ancestor between us and the chimpanzee. We also have several other fossils that help us map the evolution of other species and along with new evidence that comes to light each year, paints a more vivid picture of how we evolved.
So there really aren't any holes in the theory. At least not the ones that are most commonly pointed out. Most problems and holes in evolution are on specific things such as the article Shermain brings up all the time about the evolution of the bat wing. We don't know specifically how its done and its debated. It is unanimous that it occured via evolution however.
The focus of the thread is genetics, though. Shouldn't we be calling it Mendel's Theory?
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
DNA has the most comprehensive and complete evidence in favor of evolution. It is the smoking gun in many ways that even fossils couldn't match up to. In what possible way is DNA ever used against evolution?The focus of the thread is genetics, though. Shouldn't we be calling it Mendel's Theory?
johnhanks
Well-Known Member
Throughout this forum DNA is repeatedly held up as evidence against evolution on the grounds that it is self-evidently too complex to have arisen by blind, purposeless chance.
Or, to put it another way, if I can't see how something could have happened then IT DAMN SURE CAN'T HAVE HAPPENED!!!! What part of that do you stupid atheists not understand?
(I precis, of course, but that's the gist.)
The OP is about "Darwin's theory", which I infer to be about evolution & the role of DNA.The focus of the thread is genetics, though. Shouldn't we be calling it Mendel's Theory?
Mendel just doesn't have the gravitas of Darwin. (Are you impressed that I used "gravitas"?)
There are several fairly independent strands of evidence for evolution, actually, and not a single main one.
The argument presented in the OP (as I understand it anyway) is that DNA is supposedly too complex to have developed naturally; it must have been designed by an intelligence with a purpose.
It doesn't really touch on Evolution, but rather on the origin of life (or at least of DNA, I guess).
But while it is a legitimate and often proposed stance that evolution does not address the origin of life and should not be confused with it, the truth is that both sides of the "controversy" tend to extrapolate matters into the origin of life to some degree.
Some (many? most?) Creationists seems to feel that it is in some sense wrong to believe that life may have arisen out of chemical reactions without a divine will meaning it to. Likewise, many (or most) Evolutionists see no problem in assuming and attempting to reconstruct the origin of life from "unmeant" chemical reactions.
That however is still a speculative field, somewhat thematically linked to but completely distinct from Biological Evolution, which is a very different, far more delimited and amazingly more documented beast.