Holes in the theory of evolution

[Syriusly]

Here dumbass:

• Fact: Observations about the world around us. Example: “It’s bright outside.”
  
• Hypothesis: A proposed explanation for a phenomenon made as a starting point for further investigation. Example: “It’s bright outside because the sun is probably out.”
  
• Theory: A well-substantiated explanation acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Example: “When the sun is out, it tends to make it bright outside.”
  
• Law: A statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some phenomenon of nature. Proof that something happens and how it happens, but not why it happens. Example: Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation.

It is mathematically impossible for a living cell to form randomly, no matter how much you want to believe it did. There is zero randomness in DNA.

Fact
Creatures have evolved

Fact
Creatures adapt to their environment. They do not morph into other creatures. Monkeys continue to be monkeys. Man continues to be man.

Populations of species continue to adapt to their ever-changing environment until those populations are unrecognizable as the same species. There is no arbitrary line at which adaptation, or evolution, stops.

Different populations of species of monkeys continue to adapt until they are no longer be categorizable as the same species of monkeys. Eventually so much time passes that we would not, if we were still around to observe the populations, recognize the species of monkeys as monkeys at all but as an entirely new species, even a new genus. After hundreds of millions or billions of years, perhaps even a new phylum.

If that were the case, there would be no more monkeys, they would all be men now. Monkey DNA continues to be monkey DNA. Human DNA continues to be human. If it takes millions of years to morph from monkey to man, we would literally be walking on the millions of transitional skeletons of monkeymen. But because DNA is self correcting, it conflicts will your view that DNA makes a mistake and then for millions of years never corrects and indeed makes the same mistake without fail < never making another mistake or reverting to it's original program, until something with a whole new DNA program emerges.
One celled amoebas have always had complex DNA. If they were the first signs of life, then either their DNA has never made a mistake, or it did and then corrected, as it is designed<(programed by someone) to do because single celled amoebas continue after millions and millions and millions of years to be single celled amoebas.

Humans or human-like organisms aren't the "goal" or ending-point of evolution. Evolution has no end-point. Every population of organisms continue to evolve forever while there is life.

You are walking around on millions and billions of transitional skeletons and fossils; it's just that they haven't survived intact. Fossils are the product of very specific and rare factors. Something like 99.999% of organisms' remains do not become preserved enough to study, let alone to be discovered.

DNA is self-correcting, but not perfectly so. Most mistakes are discarded, but sometimes the self-correcting function itself is corrupted. That can turn into cancer. Cancer itself is a product of DNA evolution. More importantly, DNA doesn't recognize "mistakes" in the way you think is a mistake. Right now, were you to have your genome mapped, you'd find that some of your DNA is the same as a retrovirus.

At some point in the past one of your ancestors was infected by a virus which inserted it's DNA into the his/her reproductive cells. The DNA was benign and inserted into a benign section of the strand. Then it was copied and combined with the reproductive cells of your ancestor's mate. This happened over and over again until you. You're ancestors DNA auto-correcting function did not recognize the retrovirus DNA as a mistake. Here's where it gets interesting:

Some of that retrovirus DNA is identical in its make-up and identical in its location on your genome as it is on the same genome of chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and other primates. That right there is strong supporting evidence for common ancestry.

Not all organisms evolve into what we would consider a new genus or species. Your amoebas, for example. They've adapted to their niche environment which doesn't change significantly. So they're still around, even if they are now what we would consider a different species of amoebas. Same with sharks, reptiles like the alligator, insects like the cockroach, bacteria and viruses, and other organisms. They still aren't the same species as they were 65 million years ago, but have evolved into new species of sharks, alligators, cockroaches, bacteria and viruses.

Evolution happens. No biologist thinks it didn't. None, zero. All biologists know that populations of organisms evolve. It is sttled science. Natural selection is just one theory as to how populations evolve. Evolution = fact. Natural selection = theory explaining the fact.

Well put.

 

[Syriusly]

Fact
Creatures adapt to their environment. They do not morph into other creatures. Monkeys continue to be monkeys. Man continues to be man.

Populations of species continue to adapt to their ever-changing environment until those populations are unrecognizable as the same species. There is no arbitrary line at which adaptation, or evolution, stops.

Different populations of species of monkeys continue to adapt until they are no longer be categorizable as the same species of monkeys. Eventually so much time passes that we would not, if we were still around to observe the populations, recognize the species of monkeys as monkeys at all but as an entirely new species, even a new genus. After hundreds of millions or billions of years, perhaps even a new phylum.

If that were the case, there would be no more monkeys, they would all be men now. .

No- this is where you just expose your ignorance regarding the theory of evolution.

Monkeys never become men.

That is like you saying that your grandfather became you.

Monkeys and Humans have a common ancestor far back in our family tree- and monkeys became monkeys and humans became humans.

And then quit evolving? What stopped this inexorable force of DNA mistakes? Here is another problem for you, and whomever suggested trial and error. If an error sends a species on a different track, one more "error" and it is now on a completely different track than the one the original error was directing it to. No species could form. Thesee constant mistakes you think DNA codes make

One of your own. Richard Dawkins.
Here is his calculation for just 1 of 4 strands of a hemoglobin molecule forming randomly. It is 1 in 10 to the 190th power.
Now weigh this: that is one with 190 zero's behind it. (A trillion has 12 zeros). And even at those odds it only works if they are intelligently and mechanically isolated and in close proximity. Now calculate the odds of all 4 strands getting lucky to the 190th degree all at once. In primordial sludge. It just didn't happen.

Again- according to whom?

You provide no citation- you mention Richard Dawkins with no link.

And none of this has to do with evolution.

The theory of evolution does not include how life was created. The theory of evolution explains how life on earth is now.

And the theory of evolution is the scientific theory that best matches the evidence we have- and I will point out- you have presented no compelling alternative- other than 'na aaa'

The Blind Watchmaker Richard Dawkins
In that case how do you explain a modern birds mouth? They evolved into jaws and teeth, then devolved in to a beak?

Nothing 'devolves'- organisms 'evolve'

A beak is perfect for birds- much lighter weight than our heavy jaws.

Now- what is your competing and compelling theory that explains life on earth?

Evolution birds evolved with teeth and jaws. Heavy teeth, then backtracked to beak. Apparently.

And some scientists believe that humans are devolving now.

So I guess we are just going to overlook the statistics regarding the probability of your theory.
Let's talk sex. Trial and error cannot apply if the mutated new species is to survive. Here's why. Let's say over millions of years, a single celled amoeba has finally made enough mistakes to become a female lion. You then have to believe that somewhere millions of years ago, some other amoeba started making the exact, same mistakes, yet different mistakes and the result was a male lion. And they met on Match.com, and thank pond scum, those mutated parts seem to fit one another perfectly, and they continued the species.

It's either all or nothing with reproductive parts, If they take time to evolve, the species is done. Cells that are imperfect tend to die rather than thrive.
Same with teeth. For one to be able to chew, not only did the amoeba have to finally create teeth through trial and error, or mutation of the genes it possessed when it had no teeth, but the upper jaw had to know what the bottom jaw was doing to prepare it's upper counterpart. Otherwise there would just be teeth all over the place. To be able to close your mouth or chew is the result of a DNA code, not randomness. So are sexual organs.

As for my belief:

Psalm 139:14
............ I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

You have very much been mis-educated as to how evolution, and even basic biology works. None of what you wrote above in this post has anything to do with modern biological science. Your argument above does not apply.

I would like to write here the way current biological science would explain how two different earlier organisms aren't required to produce two later organisms of different sex, but I just don't have the time to type all of that out here.

If you don't want to believe in evolution or the theories explaining evolution, I would recommend that you at least educate yourself on the theories so that you actually know why you don't want to believe in it.

She is pretty much just cutting and pasting from the Idiot's Guide to Creationism.

I think it was Dawkins who said it doesn't serve any purpose to argue evolution with one of these folks, because they have faith that Evolution must be wrong- and cannot accept a world where Evolution is true.

Last time I will post on it.

Irish gal whines that there are 'holes' in the theory of Evolution- but has no problem with the absolute lack of evidence to support her creation myth.

Which demonstrates this thread is really just another thread arguing whether the Christian God is real or not.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Populations of species continue to adapt to their ever-changing environment until those populations are unrecognizable as the same species. There is no arbitrary line at which adaptation, or evolution, stops.

Different populations of species of monkeys continue to adapt until they are no longer be categorizable as the same species of monkeys. Eventually so much time passes that we would not, if we were still around to observe the populations, recognize the species of monkeys as monkeys at all but as an entirely new species, even a new genus. After hundreds of millions or billions of years, perhaps even a new phylum.

If that were the case, there would be no more monkeys, they would all be men now. .

No- this is where you just expose your ignorance regarding the theory of evolution.

Monkeys never become men.

That is like you saying that your grandfather became you.

Monkeys and Humans have a common ancestor far back in our family tree- and monkeys became monkeys and humans became humans.

And then quit evolving? What stopped this inexorable force of DNA mistakes? Here is another problem for you, and whomever suggested trial and error. If an error sends a species on a different track, one more "error" and it is now on a completely different track than the one the original error was directing it to. No species could form. Thesee constant mistakes you think DNA codes make

Again- according to whom?

You provide no citation- you mention Richard Dawkins with no link.

And none of this has to do with evolution.

The theory of evolution does not include how life was created. The theory of evolution explains how life on earth is now.

And the theory of evolution is the scientific theory that best matches the evidence we have- and I will point out- you have presented no compelling alternative- other than 'na aaa'

The Blind Watchmaker Richard Dawkins
In that case how do you explain a modern birds mouth? They evolved into jaws and teeth, then devolved in to a beak?

Nothing 'devolves'- organisms 'evolve'

A beak is perfect for birds- much lighter weight than our heavy jaws.

Now- what is your competing and compelling theory that explains life on earth?

Evolution birds evolved with teeth and jaws. Heavy teeth, then backtracked to beak. Apparently.

And some scientists believe that humans are devolving now.

So I guess we are just going to overlook the statistics regarding the probability of your theory.
Let's talk sex. Trial and error cannot apply if the mutated new species is to survive. Here's why. Let's say over millions of years, a single celled amoeba has finally made enough mistakes to become a female lion. You then have to believe that somewhere millions of years ago, some other amoeba started making the exact, same mistakes, yet different mistakes and the result was a male lion. And they met on Match.com, and thank pond scum, those mutated parts seem to fit one another perfectly, and they continued the species.

It's either all or nothing with reproductive parts, If they take time to evolve, the species is done. Cells that are imperfect tend to die rather than thrive.
Same with teeth. For one to be able to chew, not only did the amoeba have to finally create teeth through trial and error, or mutation of the genes it possessed when it had no teeth, but the upper jaw had to know what the bottom jaw was doing to prepare it's upper counterpart. Otherwise there would just be teeth all over the place. To be able to close your mouth or chew is the result of a DNA code, not randomness. So are sexual organs.

As for my belief:

Psalm 139:14
............ I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

You have very much been mis-educated as to how evolution, and even basic biology works. None of what you wrote above in this post has anything to do with modern biological science. Your argument above does not apply.

I would like to write here the way current biological science would explain how two different earlier organisms aren't required to produce two later organisms of different sex, but I just don't have the time to type all of that out here.

If you don't want to believe in evolution or the theories explaining evolution, I would recommend that you at least educate yourself on the theories so that you actually know why you don't want to believe in it.

She is pretty much just cutting and pasting from the Idiot's Guide to Creationism.

I think it was Dawkins who said it doesn't serve any purpose to argue evolution with one of these folks, because they have faith that Evolution must be wrong- and cannot accept a world where Evolution is true.

Last time I will post on it.

Irish gal whines that there are 'holes' in the theory of Evolution- but has no problem with the absolute lack of evidence to support her creation myth.

Which demonstrates this thread is really just another thread arguing whether the Christian God is real or not.

What seems so obvious to me, but apparently not to anti-evolutionists - to use a stupid term - is that there are "holes" in every theory, or to put it another way: blind spots, imperfections, apparent flaws, not fully understood conclusions, etc.

Theories do not fully explain every related phenomenon. Were they to do so, they would not be theories but perfect explanations of the natural world. Human beings are not able to achieve that for a number of reasons: #1 being that we do not objectively experience reality but must instead translate it into words and concepts.

I'm probably preaching to the choir here.

The thing is, these people do not seem to turn this seemingly microscopic focus onto any other theories except those that may challenge their particular beliefs like the theories of evolution or the Big Bang. You never hear them complaining about atomic theory, relativity, quantum theory, germ theory, social theories, etc.

Although they accept those theories and the evidence supporting them, they set their standards of acceptable evidence supporting evolutionary theory or the Big Bang impossibly high. Or just deny the evidence altogether i.e. transitional fossils. Then refuse to even consider that they may just have a personal bias. They seemingly almost purposely misunderstand what evolution means, focus on irrelevant data they believe somehow disproves evolution, and believe that biologists for the past 150 years have either missed this one point or are in mass denial about it.

It is exasperating but I hope that others who may read these posts come to see that creationism does not fit the data, whereas modern theories of evolution do. It doesn't mean that those theories have been proved or are even perfectly accurate. They just fit the current available data.

 

[sealybobo]

Fact
Creatures adapt to their environment. They do not morph into other creatures. Monkeys continue to be monkeys. Man continues to be man.

Populations of species continue to adapt to their ever-changing environment until those populations are unrecognizable as the same species. There is no arbitrary line at which adaptation, or evolution, stops.

Different populations of species of monkeys continue to adapt until they are no longer be categorizable as the same species of monkeys. Eventually so much time passes that we would not, if we were still around to observe the populations, recognize the species of monkeys as monkeys at all but as an entirely new species, even a new genus. After hundreds of millions or billions of years, perhaps even a new phylum.

If that were the case, there would be no more monkeys, they would all be men now. .

No- this is where you just expose your ignorance regarding the theory of evolution.

Monkeys never become men.

That is like you saying that your grandfather became you.

Monkeys and Humans have a common ancestor far back in our family tree- and monkeys became monkeys and humans became humans.

And then quit evolving? What stopped this inexorable force of DNA mistakes? E]

Who quite evolving?

Again- you really don't have a clue what the theory of evolution says- or you just lie about it- I really don't know which it is.

Every organism continues to evolve, but that doesn't mean that organisms will necessarily evolve into new and different species.

The theory of evolution best fits the scientific facts we know about life on earth.

What is your competing and more compelling theory that explains life on earth?

I think I've seen and shown enough evidence that the only people who will continue to argue evolution isn't real are the people who's religions have told them a story that conflicts with evolution.

Or even a guy like Boss who has his own generic god doesn't like evolution because evolution proves we are not special. We are just another animal. So even if a guy like Boss says, "how many times do I have to tell you I don't believe in religions" but the truth is, yes he does. He believes that he/we are special and evolution says we are not.

 

[rightwinger]

If that were the case, there would be no more monkeys, they would all be men now. .

No- this is where you just expose your ignorance regarding the theory of evolution.

Monkeys never become men.

That is like you saying that your grandfather became you.

Monkeys and Humans have a common ancestor far back in our family tree- and monkeys became monkeys and humans became humans.

And then quit evolving? What stopped this inexorable force of DNA mistakes? Here is another problem for you, and whomever suggested trial and error. If an error sends a species on a different track, one more "error" and it is now on a completely different track than the one the original error was directing it to. No species could form. Thesee constant mistakes you think DNA codes make

The Blind Watchmaker Richard Dawkins
In that case how do you explain a modern birds mouth? They evolved into jaws and teeth, then devolved in to a beak?

Nothing 'devolves'- organisms 'evolve'

A beak is perfect for birds- much lighter weight than our heavy jaws.

Now- what is your competing and compelling theory that explains life on earth?

Evolution birds evolved with teeth and jaws. Heavy teeth, then backtracked to beak. Apparently.

And some scientists believe that humans are devolving now.

So I guess we are just going to overlook the statistics regarding the probability of your theory.
Let's talk sex. Trial and error cannot apply if the mutated new species is to survive. Here's why. Let's say over millions of years, a single celled amoeba has finally made enough mistakes to become a female lion. You then have to believe that somewhere millions of years ago, some other amoeba started making the exact, same mistakes, yet different mistakes and the result was a male lion. And they met on Match.com, and thank pond scum, those mutated parts seem to fit one another perfectly, and they continued the species.

It's either all or nothing with reproductive parts, If they take time to evolve, the species is done. Cells that are imperfect tend to die rather than thrive.
Same with teeth. For one to be able to chew, not only did the amoeba have to finally create teeth through trial and error, or mutation of the genes it possessed when it had no teeth, but the upper jaw had to know what the bottom jaw was doing to prepare it's upper counterpart. Otherwise there would just be teeth all over the place. To be able to close your mouth or chew is the result of a DNA code, not randomness. So are sexual organs.

As for my belief:

Psalm 139:14
............ I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

You have very much been mis-educated as to how evolution, and even basic biology works. None of what you wrote above in this post has anything to do with modern biological science. Your argument above does not apply.

I would like to write here the way current biological science would explain how two different earlier organisms aren't required to produce two later organisms of different sex, but I just don't have the time to type all of that out here.

If you don't want to believe in evolution or the theories explaining evolution, I would recommend that you at least educate yourself on the theories so that you actually know why you don't want to believe in it.

She is pretty much just cutting and pasting from the Idiot's Guide to Creationism.

I think it was Dawkins who said it doesn't serve any purpose to argue evolution with one of these folks, because they have faith that Evolution must be wrong- and cannot accept a world where Evolution is true.

Last time I will post on it.

Irish gal whines that there are 'holes' in the theory of Evolution- but has no problem with the absolute lack of evidence to support her creation myth.

Which demonstrates this thread is really just another thread arguing whether the Christian God is real or not.

What seems so obvious to me, but apparently not to anti-evolutionists - to use a stupid term - is that there are "holes" in every theory, or to put it another way: blind spots, imperfections, apparent flaws, not fully understood conclusions, etc.

Theories do not fully explain every related phenomenon. Were they to do so, they would not be theories but perfect explanations of the natural world. Human beings are not able to achieve that for a number of reasons: #1 being that we do not objectively experience reality but must instead translate it into words and concepts.

I'm probably preaching to the choir here.

The thing is, these people do not seem to turn this seemingly microscopic focus onto any other theories except those that may challenge their particular beliefs like the theories of evolution or the Big Bang. You never hear them complaining about atomic theory, relativity, quantum theory, germ theory, social theories, etc.

Although they accept those theories and the evidence supporting them, they set their standards of acceptable evidence supporting evolutionary theory or the Big Bang impossibly high. Or just deny the evidence altogether i.e. transitional fossils. Then refuse to even consider that they may just have a personal bias. They seemingly almost purposely misunderstand what evolution means, focus on irrelevant data they believe somehow disproves evolution, and believe that biologists for the past 150 years have either missed this one point or are in mass denial about it.

It is exasperating but I hope that others who may read these posts come to see that creationism does not fit the data, whereas modern theories of evolution do. It doesn't mean that those theories have been proved or are even perfectly accurate. They just fit the current available data.

Evolution is a fact. Simpler organisms evolved into more complex organisms and finally man

The only theories involve how it occurs and why

 

[IsaacNewton]

I think one of the main barriers for people who can't accept evolution is the time scale involved.

Multi-cellular life on Earth evolved 600 million to 1.2 billion years ago. There was a huge 'explosion' of diversity and complexity that began around 550 million years ago known as the Cambrian Explosion. These are time scales that are utterly foreign to human thought. It's easy to say 500 million years and it doesn't sound like much when you say it. But if you say 'some superior organism will evolve on Earth 1 million years from now you get a glimpse of the times we are talking about. And that putting aside 500 million years. In addition 'fossilization' is a very rare occurrence requiring specific conditions.

T-Rex lived in its final form for 5-10 million years. For any species there is a minimum number of breeding pairs to keep the species going. Let's pick a random number and say there were 1,000 breeding pairs at any one time on Earth, likely a very conservative number but let's use it for example. T-Rex was a reptile so laid eggs. Probably up to 10 eggs at a time, but let's whittle it down to 2 and say each pair laid 2 eggs a year, which also may be wrong, they may have had more than one egg laying event each year but we'll go with one.

1,000 x 2 = 2,000/year offspring.

2,000 x 10,000,000 = 20,000,000,000 - 20 billion individuals born over that 10 million years.

Let's say there were 500 breeding pairs - 10 billion individual T-Rex born

Let's say only one offspring survived - 5 billion individual T-Rex born.

We have only found 35 partial skeletons fossilized of T-Rex. Out of billions. To understand evolution you have to be able to comprehend such time scales and have had enough college level statistics to see the over all picture.

People who do not have education are prone to see no further than today or no further than their nose. The world is far far larger than that and far more complex.