Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

[Aloysium]

when I was in college 25 years ago, the modern definition of “evolution” was “change in allele frequency in a population over time.”

A big part of the problem in these sorts of discussions is the definition of evolution. It’s a breath of fresh air to hear one stated. I have to admit I haven’t read most posts in this thread, so I’m unclear as to where you stand.

I’ll begin my criticism of evolution, as you define it, with the assertion that there is no mechanism that adequately describes the process by which alleles are formed. Nor is there any satisfactory explanation regarding how there developed the larger, encompassing process that is the connection between the allele and the phenotype, which it should be noted exists at a different ontological level in its being part of the environment.

In my view a big problem with evolutionary theories is that they fail to account for what is the reality of any organic being - it’s soul. Focussing on the material it leads away from the truth, offering rather the essentially illusory scientific concept of species and absurd speculations that random activity at a molecular level is the cause of the diversity we find in life.

 

[Metis1]

The basic ToE stands to common sense: all material items appear to change over time, and genes are material items. And, to anticipate a question, there is no evidence that “micro-evolution” somehow miraculously stops before getting to “macro-evolution”.

Also, one might google “speciation” for examples, and even the Wiki article on that is decent.

 

[Aloysium]

Is it common sense that the speed of light is the only constant in space-time, resulting in the fact that to a photon travelling billions of lightyears to hit the retina the entire trajectory happens instantaneously, although to the the person attached to the retina it took billions of years?

It may seem like it’s beyond one’s pay grade to figure it out, but we needn’t accept everything we are told. I would appreciate your answering a couple of questions to start:

• How do you imagine these changes in the genome and in the accompanying cell processes, take place in order to affect a change such as, let’s say sexual reproduction?
• If you believe that species exist, and strict evolutionists would not, and are not merely an invention for communication purposes having no underlying reality, what are they?

 

[Uriel1]

a tragic misunderstanding of micro-evolution my friend; you are thinking of natural manipulation of alleles, not a cat becoming a dog (and there is not any extant fossil record of a common ancestor either)

 

[rossum]

a tragic misunderstanding of micro-evolution my friend; you are thinking of natural manipulation of alleles, not a cat becoming a dog (and there is not any extant fossil record of a common ancestor either)

A tragic misunderstanding of evolution. Cats are not descended from dogs. Dogs are not descended from cats. Both are descended from a carnivore common ancestor like: Dormaalocyon latouri.

As I have told you before, your sources are lying to you. Why do you continue to trust lying sources which give you false information? It took me a few seconds to find Dormaalocyon latouri on the web and show that your sources were wrong about there being no extant placental carnivore common ancestor.

You can do better than this.

rossum

 

[Uriel1]

Uriel1:

a tragic misunderstanding of micro-evolution my friend; you are thinking of natural manipulation of alleles, not a cat becoming a dog (and there is not any extant fossil record of a common ancestor either)

A tragic misunderstanding of evolution. Cats are not descended from dogs. Dogs are not descended from cats. Both are descended from a carnivore common ancestor like: Dormaalocyon latouri.

As I have told you before, your sources are lying to you. Why do you continue to trust lying sources which give you false information? It took me a few seconds to find Dormaalocyon latouri on the web and show that your sources were wrong about there being no extant placental carnivore common ancestor.

You can do better than this.

rossum

"Paleontologist Floréal Solé of the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences and a team of colleagues recently described more than 250 new teeth, jaw, and ankle bone specimens of Dormaalocyon latouri, named for the Belgian locality of Dormaal where the fossil was first found in a site long famed for early Eocene epoch remains.

Fossilized jaw bones and teeth, including baby teeth, provide valuable evidence of the ancient animal’s taste for flesh. According to Solé, Dormaalocyon is the most primitive known member of the carnivoraforms group. That group is represented by today’s 280-plus species of living carnivorous mammals, the order Carnivora, which includes lions, seals, bears, cats, dogs, and others—all of which count this creature as their ancestor."

I read this three or four years ago; postulation and a Watchtower type drawing - nothing more. There are no transitional fossils, none, zilch

Your problem might be simply that you seem not to have read any serious critiques of Darwin, for example, Naked Emperor by A Latham

 

[rossum]

I read this three or four years ago; postulation and a Watchtower type drawing - nothing more. There are no transitional fossils, none, zilch

False. Obviously false. There is a fossil, yet you deny the obvious. It is a transitional species, again obvious.

Do you really think that you can overthrow a well established scientific theory with such obviously ridiculous claims.

I know that you get those false claims from creationist websites, but that should be a warning sign that those claims are false. Those sites lie to you because they have no facts to support their scientifically ludicrous ideas. All they have are lies.

Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called “creationism” and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such.

– Benedict XVI

rossum

 

[Uriel1]

Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.

You do harp on about websites. I happen to prefer books and said in my previous post “Your problem might be simply that you seem not to have read any serious critiques of Darwin, for example, Naked Emperor by A Latham”

As you ignored that comment may we assume you have not read this book?

 

[rossum]

I assume that you have not read “What Evolution Is” by Mayr or “Your Inner Fish” by Shubin.

There are too many books for me, or you, to read all of them.

There is enough evidence for evolution for me to know that almost every anti-evolution book will just be rehashing old creationist PRATTs.

As and when creationists come up with something new – as Behe did with IC – then science will look at it and analyses will appear in the scientific literature. As it turned out, Behe was partly right, and the part where he was right has been incorporated into the theory. The part where he was wrong was, naturally, not included.

rossum

 

[Uriel1]

I assume that you have not read “What Evolution Is” by Mayr or “Your Inner Fish” by Shubin.

There are too many books for me, or you, to read all of them.

There is enough evidence for evolution for me to know that almost every anti-evolution book will just be rehashing old creationist PRATTs.

As and when creationists come up with something new – as Behe did with IC – then science will look at it and analyses will appear in the scientific literature. As it turned out, Behe was partly right, and the part where he was right has been incorporated into the theory. The part where he was wrong was, naturally, not included.

rossum

Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.

You don’t seem to understand that you don’t have control of the debate. God has control. 150 years after the Origin there is no missing link, no explanation of the development of the eye, nor tooth form, nor the chicken and egg question. You simply engage in an anti Creator, faith based, construct

 

[rossum]

150 years after the Origin there is no missing link,

Of course not. When a link is found it becomes a found link because it is no longer missing.

no explanation of the development of the eye,

Your creationist sources are lying to you. We have intermediate functional forms for the development of the vertebrate eye from amphioxus to flatworms to nautilus to fish. Your lying creationist sources do not tell you that. Why do you believe people who do not keep God’s commandment not to bear false witness?

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

We have intermediate functional forms for the development of the vertebrate eye from amphioxus to flatworms to nautilus to fish.

Interestingly, while we have an appendix, some people extra nipples, there are very very few residual or incomplete organs, which might be totally useless, but not leaving the organism prey to the forces of natural selection. You’d think we’d be walking around with half-formed antennae that pick up nonexistent forms of radiation.

 

[rossum]

Interestingly, while we have an appendix, some people extra nipples, there are very very few residual or incomplete organs, which might be totally useless, but not leaving the organism prey to the forces of natural selection. You’d think we’d be walking around with half-formed antennae that pick up nonexistent forms of radiation.

Antennae are for Arthopods, and it was a very long time ago that we separated from the Arthopods. The closest we have to antennae are arms and legs: antennae developed from Arthopod limbs.

rossum

 

[mVitus]

a Watchtower type drawing

Watchtower? You, as a Catholic, know how horribly wrong JWs mess up basic tenets of Christianity and how the elders lie to their congregations about even basics of their own history (John Wyclife would be a heretic to modern JWs.) And you give them credibility with science?

 

[Uriel1]

There is no intermediate fossil record jut a load of missing links.

You really should stop using pejorative words - as a Buddhist that ought to be beneath you.

If you can refrain from the above behaviour I’m happy to debate the eye with you.

So let’s look at the squid, octopus and nautilus. Nautilus is unusual in having an eye like ours, but with no lens. By what possible genetic mutation do you think a lens would a lens be able to develop in nautilus’ eye? There has been none postulated @Rossum, none at all. Why do you think that is my friend?

It’s because “Evolutionists” abuse micro-evolutionary theory and pretend it makes their case. Just try to explain Nautilus and let’s enjoy what you can’t explain
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

 

[Uriel1]

It may be that @Rossum has developmental antennae as he is picking up a lot of supposition
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

 

[Uriel1]

Just sayin’ the Nat Geo article used a Watchtower type coloured drawing
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

 

[rossum]

There is no intermediate fossil record jut a load of missing links.

There is a load of found links that form exactly that fossil record you refer to.

So let’s look at the squid, octopus and nautilus. Nautilus is unusual in having an eye like ours, but with no lens. By what possible genetic mutation do you think a lens would a lens be able to develop in nautilus’ eye? There has been none postulated @Rossum, none at all. Why do you think that is my friend?

Whoever told you that none had been postulated was lying to you. Snails’ eyes (the ones on stalks) are similar to a Nautilus, but instead of being filled with seawater (as with the Nautilus) they are filled with transparent jelly. All evolution has to do is to tweak the consistency of the outer part of the jelly and it is a proto-lens. Snails are molluscs, as are cephalopods.

It’s because “Evolutionists” abuse micro-evolutionary theory and pretend it makes their case. Just try to explain Nautilus and let’s enjoy what you can’t explain

It’s because “Creationists” abuse evolutionary theory and pretend it makes their case. Their pretence of the failure to explain Nautilus lets everyone else see that all they have in their support is misrepresentation.

rossum

 

[RandomAlias]

Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.

You really must stop using Sacred Scripture to score bully points.

 

[Uriel1]

rossum:

I assume that you have not read “What Evolution Is” by Mayr or “Your Inner Fish” by Shubin.

There are too many books for me, or you, to read all of them.

There is enough evidence for evolution for me to know that almost every anti-evolution book will just be rehashing old creationist PRATTs.

As and when creationists come up with something new – as Behe did with IC – then science will look at it and analyses will appear in the scientific literature. As it turned out, Behe was partly right, and the part where he was right has been incorporated into the theory. The part where he was wrong was, naturally, not included.

rossum

Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.

You don’t seem to understand that you don’t have control of the debate. God has control. 150 years after the Origin there is no missing link, no explanation of the development of the eye, nor tooth form, nor the chicken and egg question. You simply engage in an anti Creator, faith based, construct

@RandomAlias . You said

Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.

I’ve re-posted the whole post and would repeat what Scripture says
Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.
I suggest you look up what it means, as it is certainly not a bully point