Holes in Darwin's Theory?

[Shadow Wolf]

Describe three holes in Darwin's theory.

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.

Why do so many include the origins of life, and how it formed, in with the theory of Evolution when ToE says not one thing about the origins of life beyond a common ancestry for all living organisms. It makes no claims about how life got here or came to form as it did, but rather how it developed once it was here.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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

That still makes you a hypocrite.

 

[rusra02]

Describe three holes in Darwin's theory.

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 the ToE's biggest challenge is that it cannot explain how life on earth began. To claim to know how life's diversity appeared without knowing it's beginning is, to me at least, simply bluster; which is why, I believe, evolutions advocates try to sweep the dust under the rug of abiogenesis.

Second: IMO, the fossil evidence does not support the gradual evolution of life, despite endless and at times fraudulent attempts to make it appear to do so.

Third: There is, to me at least, abundant evidence of a surpassing intelligence manifest in the evident design and structure of living creatures. There is no compelling evidence that such intelligence is simply the manifest destiny created by the environment or biological necessity.

There are more holes but these three are sufficient to bury the ToE.

 

[philbo]

I think the ToE's biggest challenge is that it cannot explain how life on earth began. To claim to know how life's diversity appeared without knowing it's beginning is, to me at least, simply bluster; which is why, I believe, evolutions advocates try to sweep the dust under the rug of abiogenesis.

You're thinking about things wrong.

Second: IMO, the fossil evidence does not support the gradual evolution of life, despite endless and at times fraudulent attempts to make it appear to do so.

What do you think the fossil evidence does show? Obviously the tens/hundreds of millions of legitimate fossils that have nothing to do with the handful of attempts at fraud.

Third: There is, to me at least, abundant evidence of a surpassing intelligence manifest in the evident design and structure of living creatures. There is no compelling evidence that such intelligence is simply the manifest destiny created by the environment or biological necessity.

There are more holes but these three are sufficient to bury the ToE.

Oh, FFS - what you mean is because you have a predisposition to want to disbelieve that evolution has occured, you are willing to maintain ignorance so you can dismiss it out of hand. Keep your head in the sand, but it might be a good idea not to display your wilful ignorance in front of people with a bit more education.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think the ToE's biggest challenge is that it cannot explain how life on earth began.

Are you aware that it does not even have a reason to try?

There is considerable speculation and progress in research about abiogenesis, but that is unrelated to the ToE.

I suppose you may be confusing matters because neither the ToE nor abiogenesis research make a point of decreeing the existence of a designer.

In any case, why would a matter that does not concern it at all be a challenge to the ToE?

To claim to know how life's diversity appeared without knowing it's beginning is, to me at least, simply bluster;

Well, that sounds at least a bit arrogant and naive, I must say.

It is akin to saying that to claim to know how chemicals react without knowing who or what created matter is "bluster".

People can learn and teach useful things without claiming to have the primordial answers, you know.

which is why, I believe, evolutions advocates try to sweep the dust under the rug of abiogenesis.

Why would we even need or want to do something that is ready-made in the first place? The ToE does not even attempt to explain the origin of life. It is a fact.

It is certainly compatible with abiogenesis, which to some extent is a natural hypothesis to develop from it. But you are really grasping at straws in attempting to discredit the ToE by proxy like that. It makes you sound like you have no idea whatsoever of what you are talking about.

Second: IMO, the fossil evidence does not support the gradual evolution of life, despite endless and at times fraudulent attempts to make it appear to do so.

Well, what about the facts then? Not only the fossil evidence, which you are basically saying that you don't want to learn about, but also the biological evidence of several kinds?

Third: There is, to me at least, abundant evidence of a surpassing intelligence manifest in the evident design and structure of living creatures.

We get that you are a Theist. Fine. But a poor reason for fearing the truth.

There is no compelling evidence that such intelligence is simply the manifest destiny created by the environment or biological necessity.

I agree. There is no manifest destiny, far as anyone can truly tell. Evolution is aimless, although the selective pressure of the environment (an abstract yet useful concept) does lend it very circunstantial aims along time.

Oh, and there is no compelling evidence that this intelligence you speak of exists, either.

There are more holes but these three are sufficient to bury the ToE.

Except that they fail utterly and spectacularly in even addressing it at all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think the ToE's biggest challenge is that it cannot explain how life on earth began. To claim to know how life's diversity appeared without knowing it's beginning is, to me at least, simply bluster; which is why, I believe, evolutions advocates try to sweep the dust under the rug of abiogenesis.

Do you have the same objection to our theories of electricity? Is it wrong to explore how electrons behave without first figuring out how they were formed?

Second: IMO, the fossil evidence does not support the gradual evolution of life, despite endless and at times fraudulent attempts to make it appear to do so.

Actually, it supports gradual evolution very well.

Third: There is, to me at least, abundant evidence of a surpassing intelligence manifest in the evident design and structure of living creatures. There is no compelling evidence that such intelligence is simply the manifest destiny created by the environment or biological necessity.

There are more holes but these three are sufficient to bury the ToE.

How's that last one a hole even if your impression is correct? You're still left with a choice between the emergence of complexity by evolutionary mechanisms or by magic poofing (by a god that was presumably magically poofed into existence himself).

 

[philbo]

Actually, it supports gradual evolution very well.

I think this argument comes from a misunderstanding of what evolution is: if you believe that the theory of evolution means that everything changes at a constant rate over millions of years, then you'd expect to see continuous gradual change, and this isn't what the fossil record shows.

..obviously the sensible person realizes that this means their understanding of evolution is imperfect and reads a bit more deeply, realizing that isn't what it says at all; the disingenuous types with a preconceived agenda, seeing that the evidence doesn't point towards exactly what they erroneously believe evolution to be, declare the theory to be wrong.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Why even bother with responding to Rusra's claims about evolution (No offense)? (s)he has made the same statements over and over again regarding "Evolution can't explain how life began" and the response has been "it does not try to do that at all" the fact that s/he keeps bringing it up implies that they dont' care about that and have already made up their minds.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why even bother with responding to Rusra's claims about evolution (No offense)?

It is all nazz's fault!

It was him who called us out on another thread about how important it is to make an effort to reach actual understanding.

The rascal!

(s)he has made the same statements over and over again regarding "Evolution can't explain how life began" and the response has been "it does not try to do that at all" the fact that s/he keeps bringing it up implies that they dont' care about that and have already made up their minds.

Yes, it does. But I have commited worse mistakes than giving Rusra yet another chance.

 

[Ouroboros]

I think this argument comes from a misunderstanding of what evolution is: if you believe that the theory of evolution means that everything changes at a constant rate over millions of years, then you'd expect to see continuous gradual change, and this isn't what the fossil record shows.

Small update. I thought so too, but I just recently learned that while most don't, but some records actually do show gradual change.

Mostly vertebra is very choppy and is explained with punctuated equilibrium and such.

But microfossils show continuous paths of evolution, seamless and smooth, for millions of years. There's literally thousands of species and the branching to new species can be traced, and death of old species as well. These are the invertebrate transitional forms, before vertebrates. It's also impossible for a flood event to create these layers. And is this knowledge about microfossils used for anything important in our lives today? Sure. Finding oil. Even Christian geologists accept the gradual change of these species to identify ages of the layers, without resorting to radiometric dating. (At least, this is how I understand it, but I could be wrong.)

 

[Ouroboros]

Why even bother with responding to Rusra's claims about evolution (No offense)? (s)he has made the same statements over and over again regarding "Evolution can't explain how life began" and the response has been "it does not try to do that at all" the fact that s/he keeps bringing it up implies that they dont' care about that and have already made up their minds.

Some people are best ignored, for your own good. People who won't listen will waste your time and effort. Only good thing is if you respond so other people can read and learn.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Some people are best ignored, for your own good. People who won't listen will waste your time and effort. Only good thing is if you respond so other people can read and learn.

Which I can understand. I personally don't bother with some, unless if it's in a direct debate.

 

[philbo]

Small update. I thought so too, but I just recently learned that while most don't, but some records actually do show gradual change.

Mostly vertebra is very choppy and is explained with punctuated equilibrium and such.

But microfossils show continuous paths of evolution, seamless and smooth, for millions of years. There's literally thousands of species and the branching to new species can be traced, and death of old species as well. These are the invertebrate transitional forms, before vertebrates. It's also impossible for a flood event to create these layers. And is this knowledge about microfossils used for anything important in our lives today? Sure. Finding oil. Even Christian geologists accept the gradual change of these species to identify ages of the layers, without resorting to radiometric dating. (At least, this is how I understand it, but I could be wrong.)

One of the other forums I post on has a regularly-used acronym: ITYFIABMCTT (I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that). Applies to most (over-)simplified arguments (well, to *all* over-simplified arguments, otherwise they'd not have be... you know what I mean)

I'm not disagreeing, but you do see stable populations come & go - ones that fit a niche and don't need to change (until something happens, their niche vanishes, and so do they)

 

[Ouroboros]

One of the other forums I post on has a regularly-used acronym: ITYFIABMCTT (I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that). Applies to most (over-)simplified arguments (well, to *all* over-simplified arguments, otherwise they'd not have be... you know what I mean)

Hehe. I know. It's always the challenge with anything we say.

I'm not disagreeing, but you do see stable populations come & go - ones that fit a niche and don't need to change (until something happens, their niche vanishes, and so do they)

Yes. But my understanding of the power of using microfossils to prove evolution is that there are continuous records in it. I could of course be wrong in that understanding.

 

[Falvlun]

Small update. I thought so too, but I just recently learned that while most don't, but some records actually do show gradual change.

Mostly vertebra is very choppy and is explained with punctuated equilibrium and such.

Not to mention, we shouldn't expect to find every single sort of fossil. Specific conditions need to occur for good fossil formation, and obviously, we aren't going to get those conditions everywhere and all the time. Some organisms also don't lend themselves to fossilization due to a lack of hard components.

Also, the fact that we are still finding new sorts of fossils all the time shows that some gaps in our record will eventually be filled. We just haven't found them yet.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not to mention, we shouldn't expect to find every single sort of fossil. Specific conditions need to occur for good fossil formation, and obviously, we aren't going to get those conditions everywhere and all the time. Some organisms also don't lend themselves to fossilization due to a lack of hard components.

And thanks to sea floor spreading and subduction, marine fossils are constantly being pushed back down into the mantle and destroyed. The oldest section of sea floor that exists today is only about 200 million years old.

That fact that we have as much good fossil evidence as we do is amazing, considering all the challenges that exist.

 

[Ouroboros]

Not to mention, we shouldn't expect to find every single sort of fossil. Specific conditions need to occur for good fossil formation, and obviously, we aren't going to get those conditions everywhere and all the time. Some organisms also don't lend themselves to fossilization due to a lack of hard components.

True.

In the regular fossil record (not micro) there's a much more complicated competition and selection process. And most of the times when there's a fossilization, it's in layers and more fixed time periods.

In the layers below the vertebrates, they have identified and can analyze microscopic species. In a one cube meter of soil, there's only something like 10 grams of microfossils. There're extremely tiny. And the there sedimentation is more continuous, not disrupted, for millions of years. They're difficult to study, but they're there.

Also, the fact that we are still finding new sorts of fossils all the time shows that some gaps in our record will eventually be filled. We just haven't found them yet.

The "gap" problem will always be there since only a fraction of individuals are fossilized. Whatever we find could be an uncle instead of the intermediate. It could be a branch that eventually ended. But, even an "uncle" to the intermediary is enough to see the process. For those who deny evolution, it doesn't matter if you find the exact intermediary a hundred times as long as there's at least one missing. One missing is a "missing link" to the denier.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

]I think the ToE's biggest challenge is that it cannot explain how life on earth began.[/B] To claim to know how life's diversity appeared without knowing it's beginning is, to me at least, simply bluster; which is why, I believe, evolutions advocates try to sweep the dust under the rug of abiogenesis.

Second: IMO, the fossil evidence does not support the gradual evolution of life, despite endless and at times fraudulent attempts to make it appear to do so.

Third: There is, to me at least, abundant evidence of a surpassing intelligence manifest in the evident design and structure of living creatures. There is no compelling evidence that such intelligence is simply the manifest destiny created by the environment or biological necessity.

There are more holes but these three are sufficient to bury the ToE.

I already stated this is a bizarre thing, and should not happen. Evolution states nothing about how life got here. It only deals with how life developed once life was here. It's like studying a computer with hopes of finding out where the electricity came from and how it got their to power the machine.
Now if you want to ask that of abiogenesis, then you are asking the correct field of study.

 

[philbo]

An analogy I've used before now: sure, there are some holes in Darwin's theory of evolution - the chain of evidence isn't perfect and 100%; but you don't deny the existence of Emmenthal cheese just because there are holes in it.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is entirely too biased and misleading - if not all-out dishonest, period - to say that there are holes in Darwin's ToE, though. And when it comes to today's version, that is simply ludicrous.