Holes in Darwin's Theory?

[philbo]

Sorry, yes: that is an oversimplification: there are holes in the fossil record supporting evolution, not holes in the theory explaining that.

 

[gnostic]

Your link at the OP, took me nowhere, and seemed to have nothing relating to "holes" in Darwin's theory.

Perhaps the link, continually changes so that different questions and answers are asked or given, each new day or week or month.

You probably should have quoted whatever that link, here at your OP.

When I say intelligent design, that does not nessessarily mean "God".

For all we know, our whole universe is inside a test tube in some labratory.

That's as highly speculative as believing in creator god being intelligent designer...and just as highly unlikely as a supreme being be involved in all creation of matters.

This "universe in a test tube" is certainly unscientific speculation or notion.

It makes sense to me that slow Lions and gazelles DNA did not reproduce. Thus the balance was established.

You also raise the question that when we don't allow single mothers and their children to starve are we allowing our species to evolve into weaklings?

What would happen if slow gazelles and lions reproduced?

Nature is cruel for sure, but survival of the fittest did improve the species.

While it is humanitarian to allow our weak to reproduce, will we be reversing nature and will there be consequences?

Clearly, you not understanding evolution at all, not even the most basic of Darwin's theory on natural selection, particularly that phrase "survival of the fittest".

You are make the same mistakes as many creationists have made, presently and at the past.

Seemingly, you're limiting the "survival of the fittest", to only between the "strongest" and the "weakest".

That not what "survival" mean in evolution. I won't deny that strength can play a part, but strength is not the only factor, when it comes to evolution.

What it (natural selection) really mean is the ability for any life-form to change genetically and physically to survive in changing environment.

What this mean, is that any population of species can survive, even those ones you might deemed to be "weak", as long as they can adapt to change in environment.

Why do you think that so many creature that are considered prey for predators, survive to this day?

Take the butterflies for instance. They don't show any strength whatsoever, and are often food for other insects, birds, reptiles, and to my windscreen, and yet they continue to survive in such harsh environment. You ever asked why they do survive? They survive because they are "fit" for such environment?

In the long term, strength and weakness play only minor roles to "survival of the fittest".

Many of the large mammals (megafauna) had died out before the Quaternary period or the Pleistocene epoch, leaving their smaller descendants behind, to continue to flourish.

Even what you would deem to be "weak" has a role to play. So please do not confuse "survival of the fittest" to only the strongest.

 

[rusra02]

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.

Translation: We believe evolution even though the evidence hasn't been found. And yet the ToE is called "science"? Really?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Translation: We believe evolution even though the evidence hasn't been found. And yet the ToE is called "science"? Really?

So you do not believe that characteristics of biological organisms change as they are inherited?

 

[rusra02]

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.

No one is claiming electricity evolved into a computer. But evolutionists claim that simple life forms changed into more complex forms. So, to many persons, how so-called simple life began is very relevant to whether the ToE is true, or as millions believe, is not true.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

No one is claiming electricity evolved into a computer. But evolutionists claim that simple life forms changed into more complex forms. So, to many persons, how so-called simple life began is very relevant to whether the ToE is true, or as millions believe, is not true.

It's not relevant...

common mistake That simple life changed into more complex forms...only some did, majority did not.

 

[rusra02]

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.

Millions of thinking people, including scientists, disagree. They believe there are chasms in the ToE, and that the theory is plainly put, a lie.

 

[rusra02]

So you do not believe that characteristics of biological organisms change as they are inherited?

I believe the evidence clearly shows that one organism does not change into an entirely different organism. A finch is always a finch, a fruit fly is...well, you know.

 

[rusra02]

It's not relevant...

common mistake That simple life changed into more complex forms...only some did, majority did not.

To you, perhaps, it is not relevant. But for millions of people, it is relevant.

 

[LuisDantas]

Millions of thinking people, including scientists, disagree. They believe there are chasms in the ToE, and that the theory is plainly put, a lie.

How many of those have actual functional knowledge of biology? If you are intending to imply that "millions of (...) scientists" do, I fear that it is you who is lying, knowingly or otherwise.

 

[McBell]

No one is claiming electricity evolved into a computer. But evolutionists claim that simple life forms changed into more complex forms. So, to many persons, how so-called simple life began is very relevant to whether the ToE is true, or as millions believe, is not true.

Millions of thinking people, including scientists, disagree. They believe there are chasms in the ToE, and that the theory is plainly put, a lie.

To you, perhaps, it is not relevant. But for millions of people, it is relevant.

You keep throwing out "millions of people" as though it somehow helps your argument.

You do realize that millions of people once thought the world was flat, right?
Not to mention the millions of people who thought horse hairs left in water turned into worms?
That tomatoes were poisonous?
That sickness was caused by demons?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I believe the evidence clearly shows that one organism does not change into an entirely different organism. A finch is always a finch, a fruit fly is...well, you know.

So you do not believe that characteristics of biological organisms change as they are inherited?

Because that is what evolution is.

What causes those changes? '

Mutations.

What allows certain mutations to keep propagating and others to be stopped dead in their tracks?

The Environment.

People flip out about "oh my goodness it went from a dog to a not a dog" without even taking the time to learn about evolution.

Natural Selection IS NOT the only way evolution works.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

You keep throwing out "millions of people" as though it somehow helps your argument.

You do realize that millions of people once thought the world was flat, right?
Not to mention the millions of people who thought horse hairs left in water turned into worms?
That tomatoes were poisonous?
That sickness was caused by demons?

Are there even millions of scientist out there? I mean I'm sure it's a high number, but Millions of scientists???

 

[rusra02]

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.

For the record, it's he. Evolutionists have tried various means to silence those who disagree with them. Since evolution cannot explain how life began, it is, IMO, a theory without a foundation. If you cannot explain how something started, but yet claim to understand the process thereafter, I think your claim is highly suspect.

 

[rusra02]

How many of those have actual functional knowledge of biology? If you are intending to imply that "millions of (...) scientists" do, I fear that it is you who is lying, knowingly or otherwise.

I did not say, and do not know, how many scientists reject the theory of evolution, publicly or privately. Please do no misquote me.

 

[rusra02]

You keep throwing out "millions of people" as though it somehow helps your argument.

You do realize that millions of people once thought the world was flat, right?
Not to mention the millions of people who thought horse hairs left in water turned into worms?
That tomatoes were poisonous?
That sickness was caused by demons?

Are you implying persons who reject the TOE believe the world is flat, etc.? Millions reject the ToE because they have examined the evidence both for and against the theory, and have found the TOE unconvincing.

 

[johnhanks]

If you cannot explain how something started, but yet claim to understand the process thereafter, I think your claim is highly suspect.

The sleight of hand here resides in the words "the process thereafter". The evolution of existing populations by natural selection (and/or by other means) is not the same process (or even the same kind of process) as the chemical events by which the first replicating cells arose. We have as yet only a sketchy understanding of the latter, but that puts no constraints on our understanding of the former.

For the most part we have very little idea how a language's grammatical rules came into being; that does not stop us understanding the language.

 

[HonestJoe]

Since evolution cannot explain how life began, it is, IMO, a theory without a foundation. If you cannot explain how something started, but yet claim to understand the process thereafter, I think your claim is highly suspect.

That's not the case. As long as you have a clear understanding of any chosen starting point, you can apply scientific process to it without knowing how that starting point was reached.

For example, if I tell you a blue whale is 100 miles in the air falling at terminal velocity, you can determine when it will hit the ground without having to know how the heck it got up there in the first place. Every process described in scientific form has a defined starting point and only accounts for what happens from that starting point.

If what you say were true, given how much there is that we don't know, we wouldn't be able to apply scientific principles to anything at all.

 

[johnhanks]

Millions reject the ToE because they have examined the evidence both for and against the theory...

I seriously doubt this. The millions (if such there be) who reject the ToE are virtually all followers of religious doctrines that tell them it's false. How many do you really believe have examined the evidence for evolution in any meaningful way?

 

[rusra02]

I seriously doubt this. The millions (if such there be) who reject the ToE are virtually all followers of religious doctrines that tell them it's false. How many do you really believe have examined the evidence for evolution in any meaningful way?

Millions, including scientists who study in the field.