Why Evolution is Fundamentally Flawed, Part 1
Unless I'm mistaken, until just recently Man has been unable to alter his DNA. When I say "unable" I mean "without ability". This is an important point because "unable" can also imply "without resource". Merely being unable to do a thing allows for any number of possibilities...
Our DNA can get "damaged" through radiological means, or just by aging, but alter? I don't think so. Not in the sense that Evolution insists. So how can evolution expect me to believe it is a genuine phenomenon when, regardless of how many tricks that monkey learns, even to the point of communicating through flash cards, its DNA doesn't change? It can't pass on it's wonderful tricks through the miracle of DNA.
Now let's consider Charles Darwin's "Origin of the Species". Guess when it was written? That's right, November 24th, 1859, after years of thought, speculation, and pseudo-research! Care to take a guess as to when the discovery of what would later be understood and labeled as DNA occured? Right again! 1868! By one Friedrich Miescher, a Swiss biologist. And he didn't even know what he had discovered. It wasn't until the 1940's that the structure of DNA was known, or even marginally understood.
Darwin based his whole hypothesis-- and that's still what Evolution is: a Hypothesis; a Theory --on conclusions that became invalid, genetically speaking, a mere 9 years later, in terms of discovery. 80 years, as far as understanding is concerned. So how long did Darwin spend crafting his theory?
Stay tuned.
"I was unable to pick up the kids from Dance, because the Mini-Van had a flat, so I called my sister and asked her to pick them up."
"I'm sorry. I wish I could have gotten you a 3 carat diamond, but I was unable to get the jeweler to extend enough credit... will you still marry me?"
Our DNA can get "damaged" through radiological means, or just by aging, but alter? I don't think so. Not in the sense that Evolution insists. So how can evolution expect me to believe it is a genuine phenomenon when, regardless of how many tricks that monkey learns, even to the point of communicating through flash cards, its DNA doesn't change? It can't pass on it's wonderful tricks through the miracle of DNA.
Now let's consider Charles Darwin's "Origin of the Species". Guess when it was written? That's right, November 24th, 1859, after years of thought, speculation, and pseudo-research! Care to take a guess as to when the discovery of what would later be understood and labeled as DNA occured? Right again! 1868! By one Friedrich Miescher, a Swiss biologist. And he didn't even know what he had discovered. It wasn't until the 1940's that the structure of DNA was known, or even marginally understood.
Darwin based his whole hypothesis-- and that's still what Evolution is: a Hypothesis; a Theory --on conclusions that became invalid, genetically speaking, a mere 9 years later, in terms of discovery. 80 years, as far as understanding is concerned. So how long did Darwin spend crafting his theory?
Stay tuned.
from the mind of... Eric | 8:14 PM
24 Comments:
Erasmus offers a valid point. Not on my dates; there's no arguing those, but my conclusions as to the altering/mutability of the Genetic Code. I readily admit I need to do more research. I have made claims I can't support as of yet. If ever.
Thank you, Erasmus. Though I fail to see how my monkey analogy could ever be wrong, I am willing to look more critically at my assumptions.
Actually EL Darwin didn't propose the idea of DNA. What he suggested, after examining the available data, was the idea of "natural selection." After reading your post I went and did my own research so to reply I'm gonna quote the website that I found most helpful.
Charles Darwin didn't invent the idea of evolution - that was around before he was born. He simply proposed a mechanism for evolution and provided evidence for evolution and the idea that many widely divergent organisms shared common ancestry. The mechanism Darwin proposed to explain evolution was natural selection. Here are a list of the conditions Darwin thought were required for evolution by natural selection:
1. All organisms produce far more offspring than can survive to adulthood and reproduce. This means that many of those offspring will die without reproduction.
2. Organisms vary in many ways, and much of that variation is heritable - that is, variations that exist in the parents are passed on to the offspring.
3. Some of those heritable, variable traits affect an organism's fitness - its ability to survive to reproductive maturity.
4.(This is the kicker.) Those traits that increase an organism's fitness will tend to be passed on to the organism's offspring and to subsequent generations.
What Darwin realized was that this tendency of organisms to increase in fitness by the increase of certain traits would lead to divergences in the characteristics of the offspring. Eventually, as some groups of offspring adapted to slightly different environments (than other groups), speciation would occur. Hence, The Origin of Species.
Of course, Darwin didn't know beans about genetics - he only recognized heritable variations - he didn't have any idea of what was behind the heredity. But now we know that heritable traits are ultimately controlled by genes. Which brings us back to our definition of evolution - any change in a population's allele frequencies over time.
Even if you reject evolution, do you see the logic of how populations will become different from each other over time if there is variability in fitness characteristics?
I never suggested Darwin did propose the idea of DNA. Only that DNA is the mechanism by which a species perpetuates itself. And that mechanism, as I posited, was not within the "catalog of knowledge" available at the time Darwin began his research.
Natural Selection, to my view, still isn't a "qualified enough" answer to how Man came to be. Men get stronger through "natural selection" but they don't become something other than men. Monkey's, however clever, are still monkeys.
Still, I've already conceded that my post requires more study on my part.
The way I see it, evolutionists and creationists agree on the science up to the point where "accepted science" begins to make monumental leaps to support its anti-god goals.
The "science" argument that evolutionists place their faith in has less grounds than the science argument creationists offer-craetionist answer the problem, evolutionists create more problems for science!
Boy, not even sure where to start here.
Darwin knew that there had to be some mechanism for traits to vary and to be inherited. He did not know what that mechanism was, just that it had to exist for his theory to be correct.
The discovery of DNA provided that mechanism and further support for Darwin's ideas (although the tremendous power of his theory to predict observable patterns in nature was well established by that time).
The evidence that evolution has occurred, and is still occurring, comes not just from biogeography, paleontology and comparative anatomy (some of the tools available in Darwin's day). It now pours in faster and faster from molecular genetics, population genetics, phylogenetics, epidemiology, and many other disciplines. We can now watch mutations and natural selection operate in real time- whether it be in humans, finches, or avian flu.
Plain and simple, modern molecular techniques have put the final nail in the coffin of creationism.
Your monkey analogy is not only wrong, it shows you don't understand what Darwin proposed at all. You are thinking of Lamarckian evolution, not evolution by natural selection.
Also, we share our most recent common ancestor with apes, not monkeys. We did not evolve from any species that exists today- chimps and humans simply went their own evolutionary ways several million years ago. We evolved a larger brain, they evolved other traits useful for their survival.
To put it another way, you did not descend from your cousin, the two of you just shared common grandparents. To ask why your cousin is still your cousin and not you is nonsensical.
Yes, do your research. My guess is you'll do a little, then find some creationist sources that fit your preconceptions without ever really understanding the science you are criticising.
If you want to prove me wrong, then start here: http://www.origins.tv/darwin/intro1.htm
If you want a laugh, then start here: http://www.flyingspaghettimonster.com/
And don't let me catch you equating a hypothesis with a theory again- it just shows a lack of understanding of how science works.
D. Elrod: creationists irrationally cling to beliefs that are at odds with plain, observable facts. Why? Because they so desperately want to believe in their story of how the universe- and we- came to be. They start with those beliefs, then look for reasons to continue in them, disregarding the avalanche of evidence around them for evolution and the age of the Earth.
I, too was once a creationist (as was Darwin originally) but was open enough to the facts to realize that I was wrong.
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. More proof is published every day than all the "evidence" ever cited to support creationism. I can't give you an education in biology via email. Go to your nearest university library and start reading.
I'm not trying to cling to any one belief. Logically, Evolution is a flawed theory. And let's not forget that's still what it is... A Theory.
There is plenty of evidence on the other side of the fence to discount Evolution, but no one here wants to look at it. After all, it's ludicrous to think some "higher power" designed us with specific purpose.
It takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to believe in God, or a god. There is just too much evidence to prove the atheist assertion wrong; that there is no God, and when death claims us, it all goes black; who and what we were ceases to be.
As to DNA, and genetics. Genes determine size, shape, color, strengths, and weaknesses. The genes are different person to person, but the DNA is not. Some species have more genes than others. But the fact that a species strengthens or weakens over time does not describe evolution in the sense that Man evolved from a lower state to what he is today. If Apes and man had a common ancestor, from what then did that common ancestor evolve. And that ancestor, millions of years back, to the primordial ooze/tide pool all life at some mythological point emerged?
But I will do some more research. With an open mind. The only problem with that is should I come to the same conclusion I have already... well, we'll arrive at the same impasse, ideologically speaking, we find ourselves at now.
For the record, I am familiar with biology. I just don't accept something just because a book says it's so. Though I'm willing to be convinced, I'll not blindly accept anything.
Again, the "just a theory" comment betrays the fact that you don't understand how science works. The revolution of Earth around the sun is also "just a theory."
I was raised a Christian, and have degrees in biology. I have never encountered any objective evidence for creationism. The existence (or nonexistence) of God is beyond the realm of science, and not a proposition I care to argue for or against. It is irrelevant to this debate- i.e., whether evolution occurred or not.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, but cannot be summarized in short posts like this. Humans clearly did evolve from comman ancestors with all other species known to science. If that contradicts your beliefs, revise them to incorporate the new facts.
The revolution of Earth around the sun is also "just a theory."
I'm not even going to ask how you come to that conclusion! It been established as fact that Earth does indeed orbit the sun.
You've proven my point.
You are using the word "theory" in popular terms- meaning a guess or a hunch. But in science, a theory is an explanation for observed phenomena that has been verified by actual experimentation and/or observation. It has predictive power and can be tested again and again.
A simple example is the theory that the earth revolves around the sun. A more complicated (but equally powerful) example is the theory of evolution by natural selection, which has been tested over and over and over.
So, I state again, you do not understand how science works, and should stop wasting everyone's time.
I think you're confused about the meaning of Theory. Theory is not the same as fact.
It is a fact that the Earth revolves around the sun. Einstein's theory of general relativity is a theory. Though it appears to be unquestionably true, it has not however been proven true. But neither has it been proven false.
Same thing with evolution. Science, and Academia would have us believe that it is an unquestionable fact, when in fact, it is not. It is still theory.
No confusion here. My wording is correct.
More pertinent reading:
www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html
On fact vs theory:
books.nap.edu/html/creationism/introduction.html
Science never "proves" anything. We must always leave the door open to alternative explanations for any observation. Yes, the probability that the theory of planetary motion will be overturned is vanishingly small, but the same can be said about evolutionary theory.
I found a nifty website that explains this far better than I:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Sternum, Your FAITH in THEORY is apparent. It proves you have no concept of an Intelligent Designer (God)-or at least do not allow for the possibility.
Any "natural selection" science may be observing through genetics or whatever only prove what most creationists believe-microevolution. Has science observed one organism actually turning into a completely different organism? I think not-nor do I believe it will ever happen.
I'll give you a web-site hosted by someone who is much more articulate than I.
It saddens me that you don't get to see what wonderful examples there are of how life has evolved. And it's funny that you think you have something to add to this debate when you know so little about how evolution works.
If you don't want to read the websites I cited or find real scientific journals at your library, then at least get the 2001 Evolution PBS series on DVD set from your library. It devotes an episode to God and incorporating our knowledge about evolution into Christian thought. It's not that hard.
Above all, at least understand the science behind evolutionary theory before you criticize it. As Mark Twain said, get your facts straight first, then you are free to distort them as you wish.
But the arguments presented thus far reveal only misunderstandings that any high school biology student could see through.
I was raised a Christian, and am a believer to this day. I would be delighted to find evidence for a designer- and to say that I entertain the possibility is an understatement.
But creationists give a bad name to Christians, and also to conservative Americans. In fact, conservatives like me are getting more than a little tired of the bad rap that the conservative movement, the Republican party, and our country have to keep taking because of misguided fundamentalists.
Don't be sad! I fully intend to do visit the very places you suggest. It is not my policy to cling to any belief (except in God) like a tuft of grass at the edge of a cliff. My understanding of world politics and history is not as comprehensive as others, but I know enough to get around. The same will, in time, apply to this debate. What you don't know about me is this... I am on a very conscious journey. I am learning to think for myself. A journey I'd like to see everyone on.
This debate has been very instructional.
Sternum, why do you refer me to a sight that will confirm what I already know and depart from that by making assumptions. Assumptions are all that evolution has to offer-there is no proof of it.
I have not had an evolutionist debate me with their own knowlegdge. Wvery evolutionist I encounter insists that I read what "accepted science" offers. I know what it offers. It offers a view of origins that is based on assumptions chosen by those who want it to be true.
You can be sure that any denomination that capitulates to the evolution myth is not accomplishing the commission of the Church. (compelling, teaching, baptizing)
Do you know what this is like?
It's like going back to ancient Egypt, and trying to convince the Egyptians that,no, Sun Ra actually doesn't make the sun rise every morning. I don't know why I even bother.
There is far more to what you dismiss as "accepted science" than you can ever imagine without slaving for years for a Ph.D. in biology, reading thousands of primary research papers, attending and presenting at conferences, and conducting primary research. The scientists I work with are relentlessly critical thinkers. They constantly challenge their own and each other's findings, and take nothing for granted.
I work in biotech, and see great advances made in all realms of biology and medicine based on evolutionary theory and our knowledge of our evolutionary relationships with other species. But I cannot communicate the breadth of my research experience without you first spending years and years learning the basic biology to understand what I am talking about.
So I instead refer you to sources that are designed for the general public- i.e., simplified, with as little scientific jargon as possible- to help you understand the theory which you so feebly criticize.
I contend that my view is of a much more wondrous and forethinking God than the version found in a literal reading of Genesis. My view is also based on hard evidence, careful thought and reading, and years of first-hand study of DNA- the scripture of life.
You write: "You can be sure that any denomination that capitulates to the evolution myth is not accomplishing the commission of the Church.". Such a divisive, dogmatically rigid statement.
I say to you: what kind of denomination would deny a man's persistent and open-minded search for truth? Your way sends the Church back to the middle ages of superstition and ignorance.
Such biblical literalism denies reality and is no better than charging Galileo with heresy.
For me, I'll accept truth wherever I find it, regardless of where it comes from.
Just to clarify, ELAshley, my previous two posts were directed to D. Elrod.
I figured as much.
I'm curious though; what do you do in the working world? I'm not sure what to make of "Sternum Drill"
I work in biotech. My specialty is coevolution of diseases and their hosts, with applications focusing on evolution of virulence and drug resistance in diseases (think drug-resistant HIV strains or antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections). I occassionally do some government consulting on issues like genetics of bioterrorism agents like anthrax, plus potential escape of genes from genetically modified organisms (like herbicide-resistant "Roundup ready" grasses) into wild populations.
SternumDrill is an old nickname- long story.
Let me ask another question.
How worried-- in your professional opinion --should we be about the Asian Bird Flu? I hear tales of millions dead... how accurate is that number?
Not an expert on flu, so can only give you a "for what it's worth" on this one...
It's a big concern, but that doesn't mean it will happen this year. In fact, it probably won't- the avian flu has been around for decades, and I believe has only recently acquired the ability to jump to humans. But there is a high enough probability of a pandemic that we should be watching it very closely. It shares several mutations with the deadly 1918 flu virus (which killed ~50 million and likely also came from birds).
What we can say with certainty is that there will be other flu pandemics in the future. We just don't know when. Hopefully it will be a decade or more off, in which case we will be much better equipped medically to deal with such an event.
The problem is these diseases can mutate very quickly (because of short generation times and large populations, which form a very large "pool" of individuals from which to draw new variations). What we are afraid of is that the flu may mutate into a form that can easily be passed from human to human.
We have much larger and more urbanized populations now, which make us more vulnerable. On the other hand, having better therapies and better monitoring than were available in 1918 will likely help a great deal.
As far as the accuracy of the number, nobody knows for sure and the uncertainty is huge.
More info: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4308872.stm
Post a Comment
<< Home