Holes in Darwin's Theory?

[RedJamaX]

Describe three holes in Darwin's theory.

Darwin got several specifics wrong... he also proposed his theory 150 years ago. Since that time we have learned a LOT, and have resolved most (if not all) of the debates related to Darwin's writings. Since then, Darwin's basic theory has been expanded on with fossil and DNA evidence and is now known as The Scientific Theory of Evolution.

The thing that begs the most discussion is the genetic code in DNA. There is evidence of intelligence there.

No, there is evidence of a system. We call that system Biological Evolution. that system is so well defined that it has been elevated to a Scientific Theory.

The odds of these codes strands just being haphazard and by chance is a big leap of faith.

Why is this fallacious argument always used by theists?? STOP getting your science from theologists and philosophers... it's not their field of study. No where in the Theory of Evolution does it say "code strands of DNA formed haphazardly by chance."

 

[LuisDantas]

Why is this fallacious argument always used by theists??

It is perhaps at least in part a matter of perception. They might as well wonder if there is an intelligence behind the Normal Distribution.

 

[RedJamaX]

"Darwin's theory" is often just a casual reference to the modern theories of evolution.

Out of 10 times that I see Darwin's name used, only once is used to describe a brilliant scientist who officially proposed the idea of natural evolution, and that is usually for the purpose of presenting the information for what it is.

The other 9 times, it's being used by a theist to reinforce the beliefs of their followers by making several fallacious claims.. for example:
1. Probably the biggest use of "Darwin" is to claim that the current Theory of Evolution is no different than what Darwin proposed 150 YEARS AGO... And that Scientists will tell you that there were problems with it, and so it cannot possibly be correct in any manner...

2. The term "Darwinian Evolutionists" is used to describe people who trust that evolution is true - it is used in a manner that is meant to be demeaning as it is meant to say that "evolutionists" believe in a science that all scientists are arguing about (also not true)

3. Addressing Darwin directly to attack his character in order to discredit his science. Ad homonim attack... regardless of whether or not Darwin was a complete *** hole... his science was good.

 

[Valjean]

The OP is about "Darwin's theory", which I infer to be about evolution & the role of DNA.
Mendel just doesn't have the gravitas of Darwin. (Are you impressed that I used "gravitas"?)

Very impressive.
I trust you caught the levitas in my Mendel post, as well.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The only holes I ever see in evolutionary theory are in peoples' understanding of it.

 

[philbo]

The only holes I ever see in evolutionary theory are in peoples' understanding of it.

:yes:

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm currently reading Prothero's book "Evolution, What the Fossil Record Says and Why It Matters."

It's amazing how much evidence there is for abiogenesis. A lot more than I knew about before. It's very close to be solved completely. Most steps already are.

And what's even more interesting, Darwin was wrong! It didn't begin in a premoridal soup, but more likely in a black smoke (hydrothermal vent). Well... it's not true either. Life began at many different places in many different levels. The first amino acids (which we know can easily be produced in space... simply because they've been found in meteorites). The process is simple. And nuclotides, I think all but one are solved. Cell membrane, practically solved. Simple peptides, solved. The hurdle right now is the polypeptide chains start to line up. Given the right conditions, they will, but how that condition is made isn't clear yet.

 

[Ouroboros]

The only holes I ever see in evolutionary theory are in peoples' understanding of it.

And the hole in my head when I read their posts.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is perhaps at least in part a matter of perception. They might as well wonder if there is an intelligence behind the Normal Distribution.

To further elaborate my own statement: it seems that some Theists expected the world to be some sort of chaotic mess without a Conscious Purpose making it ordered.

But that is simply not how things work. Chaos _does_ create more stable patterns naturally.

It may even be because there is a Creator God Behind It All, but there is no doubt that it does happen. An Atheist is by definition someone who does not assume that it is so because of God, though.

 

[Ouroboros]

To further elaborate my own statement: it seems that some Theists expected the world to be some sort of chaotic mess without a Conscious Purpose making it ordered.

But that is simply not how things work. Chaos _does_ create more stable patterns naturally.

It may even be because there is a Creator God Behind It All, but there is no doubt that it does happen. An Atheist is by definition someone who does not assume that it is so because of God, though.

And nature is self-organizing. Crystals, snow flakes, even amino acids and more emerges from a world that keeps on creating it.

 

[George-ananda]

The thing that begs the most discussion is the genetic code in DNA. There is evidence of intelligence there.

The odds of these codes strands just being haphazard and by chance is a big leap of faith.

I think you're right. The genetic code in DNA begs discussion. ( The title of this thread might have gotten the discussion going in the wrong direction as this much beyond Darwin).

Anyway, the famous former atheist Antony Flew concluded towards the end of his life the genetic code in DNA can only be reasonably explained by an intelligence not understood by science. Flew spent years studying this and other subjects with experts before forming his belief.

Hard-core atheists will stick to their physicalist view and nobody can prove the other right or wrong either. As not many do years of thought and study to come to their beliefs, they will parrot the experts that appeal to their prejudice.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Hard-core atheists will stick to their physicalist view and nobody can prove the other right or wrong either. As not many do years of thought and study to come to their beliefs, they will parrot the experts that appeal to their prejudice.

Just like the hard-core irrationalists always seem to mistakenly think there's some connection between atheism and evolutionary biology. It doesn't take years of thought and study to at least understand what the terms you use mean. I'd suggest starting there.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I think you're right. The genetic code in DNA begs discussion. ( The title of this thread might have gotten the discussion going in the wrong direction as this much beyond Darwin).

Anyway, the famous former atheist Antony Flew concluded towards the end of his life the genetic code in DNA can only be reasonably explained by an intelligence not understood by science. Flew spent years studying this and other subjects with experts before forming his belief.

Hard-core atheists will stick to their physicalist view and nobody can prove the other right or wrong either. As not many do years of thought and study to come to their beliefs, they will parrot the experts that appeal to their prejudice.

Wasn't Flew a philospher?

Here's a small exerpt from wikipedia on his beliefs

In an interview with Joan Bakewell for BBC Radio 4 in March 2005, Flew rejected the fine-tuning argument as a conclusive proof: "I don't think it proves anything but that it is entirely reasonable for people who already have a belief in a creating God to regard this as confirming evidence. And it's a point of argument which I think is very important – to see that what is reasonable for people to do in the face of new evidence depends on what they previously had good reason to believe." He also said it appeared that there had been progress made regarding the naturalistic origins of DNA. However, he restated his deism, with the usual provisos that his God is not the God of any of the revealed religions.[30] In the same interview, Flew was asked whether he was retracting belief in an Aristotelian God, but answered no.
One month later, Flew told Christianity Today that although he was not on the road to becoming a Christian convert, he reaffirmed his deism: "Since the beginning of my philosophical life I have followed the policy of Plato's Socrates: We must follow the argument wherever it leads."[31]
In late 2006, Flew joined 11 other academics in urging the British government to teach intelligent design in the state schools.[32]
In 2007, in an interview with Benjamin Wiker, Flew said again that his deism was the result of his "growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe" and "my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source." He also restated that he was not a Christian theist.[33]

 

[Falvlun]

I think you're right. The genetic code in DNA begs discussion. ( The title of this thread might have gotten the discussion going in the wrong direction as this much beyond Darwin).

Anyway, the famous former atheist Antony Flew concluded towards the end of his life the genetic code in DNA can only be reasonably explained by an intelligence not understood by science. Flew spent years studying this and other subjects with experts before forming his belief.

Hard-core atheists will stick to their physicalist view and nobody can prove the other right or wrong either. As not many do years of thought and study to come to their beliefs, they will parrot the experts that appeal to their prejudice.

"I can't believe that nature works like this" is not an adequate criticism of a scientific theory, and that's essentially what this boils down to: I can't believe that something as complex as DNA could occur through naturalistic properties, therefore, the theory must be wrong. (And this is being generous, as actually, most people do not stop with simply claiming that the theory is wrong, but that it's wrongness somehow proves some other theory, namely the existence of a creator God.)

Unless you actually have evidence as to why the theory does not account for the development of things like DNA, the theory stands as our best account as to how it developed.

It is also important to remember that many things that were previously touted by IDers as being "irreducibly complex" have been shown to indeed be reducible, such as the flagellum and the eye.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think you're right. The genetic code in DNA begs discussion. ( The title of this thread might have gotten the discussion going in the wrong direction as this much beyond Darwin).

Anyway, the famous former atheist Antony Flew concluded towards the end of his life the genetic code in DNA can only be reasonably explained by an intelligence not understood by science. Flew spent years studying this and other subjects with experts before forming his belief.

Hard-core atheists will stick to their physicalist view and nobody can prove the other right or wrong either. As not many do years of thought and study to come to their beliefs, they will parrot the experts that appeal to their prejudice.

I do not doubt that Antony Flew convinced himself that DNA must have been intentionally designed, but I certainly see no reason to assume that he is right in that belief. He is certainly, and drammatically, a minority opinion on that matter.

But if good enough evidence to support such a conclusion does eventually turn up, I'm certain biologists will be very impressed.

That just isn't at all likely to happen, since if anything everything has been pointing in the opposite direction; DNA smells of being an accidental, unintelligent creation,and strongly at that.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think you're right. The genetic code in DNA begs discussion. ( The title of this thread might have gotten the discussion going in the wrong direction as this much beyond Darwin).

Anyway, the famous former atheist Antony Flew concluded towards the end of his life the genetic code in DNA can only be reasonably explained by an intelligence not understood by science. Flew spent years studying this and other subjects with experts before forming his belief.

Hard-core atheists will stick to their physicalist view and nobody can prove the other right or wrong either. As not many do years of thought and study to come to their beliefs, they will parrot the experts that appeal to their prejudice.

Isn't that exactly what you just did?

 

[George-ananda]

Isn't that exactly what you just did?

Maybe I didn't word it clearly, but I'm saying both sides do this on the DNA debate.

 

[McBell]

I think you're right. The genetic code in DNA begs discussion. ( The title of this thread might have gotten the discussion going in the wrong direction as this much beyond Darwin).

Anyway, the famous former atheist Antony Flew concluded towards the end of his life the genetic code in DNA can only be reasonably explained by an intelligence not understood by science. Flew spent years studying this and other subjects with experts before forming his belief.

Hard-core atheists will stick to their physicalist view and nobody can prove the other right or wrong either. As not many do years of thought and study to come to their beliefs, they will parrot the experts that appeal to their prejudice.

Out of curiosity, who would be considered an "expert" theist?

 

[LuisDantas]

Maybe I didn't word it clearly, but I'm saying both sides do this on the DNA debate.

Are you sure?

Because really, it looks a lot like wishful thinking from here where I stand.

It may be a confortable idea, but it does you no favors. And it has no chance of convincing us who disagree with you on this matter.

I am not even convinced that it was meant to, quite frankly.

 

[psychoslice]

A theory is theory until proven wrong, but if you are going to try to prove the theory wrong, how are you going to prove that wrong with your own theory which is one big hole. Science admit that they don't know it all, but creationist believe they are right, that they cannot be wrong, and this is what makes me not wanting to ever listen to them, its just plain arrogance.