Why the Evolution theory is wrong

June 30, 2010

GreenPenInc wrote:

Seriously though, I wanted to offer the perspective of someone who has accepted evolution. I'm writing my PhD thesis right now, so I am unlikely to be able to respond to further posts. But I would like to share a good resource for learning what evolution actually says, and why we should believe it's true. Here it is:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

The author helpfully starts by defining evolution, as "common descent". Note that this adds a tremendous amount of clarity to the discussion. It's a simple, testable idea. Moreover, it doesn't trivialize the topic: evolutionists accept it, and anti-evolutionists deny it. In fact, it distills the very essence of what we're arguing about when we argue about evolution. The author explains in a lot more detail why this important; I highly recommend reading the introduction.

This definition also leaves out a lot of distracting "side stuff", including the origin of life itself. True, one way of looking at "evolution" could include the origin of life. But I think it's better to leave it out, because (a) it makes the topic too broad to be easily covered, and (b) there is already plenty we disagree about and can discuss[1], without it!

If anyone is really serious about learning about evolution, I recommend this document. It requires slow, careful study. At the end of it, I came to the conclusion that either evolution really did happen, or God arranged irrefutable evidence to make us think that it did. (At which point, why not just play along? :) ) In particular, I think the "protein functional redundancy" and "endogenous retroviruses" (for example) are powerful and compelling, and do not have credible alternative explanations.

So this is why I (and others) accept evolution. And this is why claims of missing evidence --- evidence that, in fairness, we would not expect to survive even if evolution were true --- does not persuade me otherwise. Because the evidence that it did happen is too overwhelming and unambiguous.

[1] Yes, I realize it's silly of me to say "discuss" when I don't plan to return to the discussion, due to severe time constraints on my doctoral thesis. Send me a message in September and I may be willing to talk more then.

----

And let me respond to the watch analogy, too. Analogies are helpful ways of understanding things that are alike in some respects, and unlike in others. What's critical is that the comparison depends only on the alike parts, and not any unlike ones! Here's what I mean: evolution absolutely requires that the things which evolve are self-replicating, and that offspring can differ slightly from their parents. This is not remotely true of any watch I have ever seen. The analogy fails at a critical point.

If the intent is to expose a genuine flaw in the basis for evolution, I hope honesty will compel you to stop using the analogy if you've now seen how it fails.

I know this gentleman said that he is not going to be able to respond, but I would like to respond to what he said and perhaps I will drop the same note into him later (after he gets his Phd). The reason why the lack of intermediate creatures matters much more than what he trivialized. Their bones should have survived. There is no reason why atleast one creature of each link out of billions of years and billions of supposed creatures wouldn't be in the fossil record. A horse with toes and the other alleged missing links show their depravation of missing links and the fact they use these creatures further disproves evolution. The horse with toes has been shown not to be a horse at all. Also, even if it were a horse, that would seem to indicate that it is further breaking from a more complex creature to a more simple creature instead of evolutionary progress. The way toes are formed is this: inside the cell there are digestive lysosomes with chemicals inside them that will destroy the surrounding cell. When the infant is in the mothers womb, it has been predetermined that this child needs fingers and toes by our genetic code. In the gaps where toes are to be, the lysosomes deliberately erupt and kill the cell, and therefore construct toes. This is one of the many fascinating things of our bodies. To go from toes to no toes is regression and not progression. There is also the problem that all these alleged intermediates are a part of micro-evolution. I never said micro-evolution is wrong. Actually, micro-evolution is a fact of life. The problem is exactly as this intelligent writer shows. He thinks, as well as all evolutionists, that micro-evolution proves macro-evolution. It does not. Micro-evolution is a part of God's design to give us variety. Foegive me for not being clear and saying evolution is wrong. It would be more accurate to say macro-evolution is wrong. In principle, when I hear the word evolution, I think of one species turning into another. This is impossible. It not only has not been observed, but science also tells us of its impossibility. First, there is a law of genetics that almost EVERY evolutionist seems to ignore. The law says that Aquired attributes cannot be inherited. What this means is that when they teach a monkey to use sign language, that monkey might have children and die. However, the children of that monkey cannot learn sing language any easier. The aquired ability to do sign language is never passed on. If an animal has to stretch his neck to get food. His children will always have the same small neck, there will be no genetic mutation. This has been the observation of science 100% of the time. That is why it is a law. Genetic mutations are rarely good if they do happen. Countless fruit fly experiments verify this. Stick them in radiation, and what do you get? Fly's with legs on their forehead. It takes a HUGE jump to go from one species to the next. The fact is that their supposed indisputable evidence that this very intelligent gentleman shared is never one creature changing species, but an adaptation - a small variation within its kind that gives us what we see today - variety. As I am preparing for Med school, I had to read up on evolution principles. I was aghast to see how scientists are defining evolution. One book told me that evolution was simply a change in the gene pool. Another words (this is actually the same example), if the ratio of blue eyes to brown eyes is 70%:30%, and it changes to 71%:29%, it is evolution because there has been a change in the gene pool. This is where it becomes very difficult to argue against evolution, because intelligent individuals like the previous posters buy this hook line and sinker. They are very smart, but this is not macro-evolution, nor does it indicate macro-evolution could be even remotely possible. If we discuss the evidence throwing out micro-evolution, we will see there is absolutely no way macro-evolution is possible. Nor is there any indication that God chose to do it that way. There would be the missing links. I get this same sad response from every evolutionist I talk to. They say, \"We are lucky to have what we have...\" There are whole links missing, not just scattered creatures. We should atleast have one creature of each intermediary for the supposed billions that lived. It is possible for most to be destroyed, but what is the odds of every single bone of every single intermediary creature that supposedly had billions of years of exhistance before becoming extinct to vanish. Atleast one skelaton of each creature as it transitions from one type to the other and I would be intellectually satisfied with that. I believe that the very principles and mechanisms of evolution is faulty science, but what convinces me the most is the lack of creatures in the fossil record. It is not scientifically possible for us to be missing that many creatures. I hear the special pleads on evolutions behalf because of micro-evolution. I am repeating myself, but micro-evolution does not prove nor does it even slightly hint at macro-evolution. They can come out with a million more proofs of micro, and I will not be swayed. Foegive me for the long post, but I have been enjoying descussions on evolution recently. This is not an argument against the intelligent individual that I am replying in response to. Many people take his position. I simply don't think that it has anything to do with macro-evolution.

Be the first person to like this.