Misconceptions about Evolution

[JohnStOnge]

3. Evolution is just a theory.

A theory in science refers to scope not validity. Any idea that has broad explanatory power for natural phenomena is a theory. It's a broad unifying prinicple. Like the theory of Gravity. .

There is where you really over reach...by comparing the theory that all life descended from a single organism ( or series of single celled organisms) to the theory of gravity. You're not the only one. I've seen that before. But to suggest that the overall theory of evolution is associated with the kind of certainty associated with gravitational theory is absurd. With gravitational theory, you can do experiments and predict what's going to happen then observe it to happen exactly as you said it would. That is not the case with the theory of evolution. The two things are not comparable.

 

[YWN666]

Not quite true. Many biologists are not as keen on evo. theory as you might like. I can find the names of biologists, chemists, microbiologists, astronomers, etc who have moved from the one position to the other.

I'd like to see that list.

 

[YWN666]

Kitten has a cute name, but her ad hominem defenses really aren't.
Furthermore, her rebuttals indicate that she doesn't quite understand what she's talking about. I would encourage the rest of you to think a little more logically

You complain about ad hominem and then engage in it yourself.

Consider me unimpressed.

 

[hansom]

YMN, I'll overlook your assumption, and politely encourage you to consider the definition of ad hominem.

To answer your query, here are few biologists who have rejected macro evolution:
Biologist Dean Kenyon, geneticist Michael Denton, microbiologist James Shapiro, to some degree Wilder Penfield, and Allan Sandage, who is apparently a very respected scientist in that realm. Not being one, i can only base that determination on his peer reviews.

Even Darwin admitted that "if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down"

You can look up these, and many others, including essays and quotations. A lot has happened in the last 20 years of biological research

Food for thought.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know....Darwin got it right. But.....he also followed it through to a wrong end.

Think about it this way.......

You are a computer programmer. You write code that works beautifully, but, when you write the final line, you put it at a dead end, and then everyone says it didn't work.

Just because you made the wrong choice at the end.

Evolution is real people. It has been real in animals for however long the earth has been here. It continues today, and will still be here in the future. Ever hear of a do-do bird? It evolved itself out of existence, because it didn't want to fly, therefore becoming food for all the other predators.

Where did Darwin get it wrong? Simple.......he was looking for something that looked like we do. Same thing happened when we started to first envision ET's.........we made 'em look like us.

Now? Well.....if you watch History Channel, you would see where scientists (through theory and observation) have postulated what ET would REALLY look like.

Darwin made the same mistake. He should have checked the Bible first, and read it with a bit more understanding.........

Yeshua (Jesus) said "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of Men". Meaning, if you followed Him, He would teach you things to teach others.

Now........take that same thought, and combine it with the way that dolphins react around humans. We have a "link". I used to see it whenever I came through the Straits of Gilbraltar going in, or coming out of the Med.

Also have seen it on TV, as well as at Sea World. People can actually communicate with dolphins. What other animal do you see that in? Not only that......but the only 2 animals on this earth that have sex for recreation are humans and dolphins.

Maybe Darwin got it wrong......we're not descended from apes, we're descended from dolphins.

 

[manu1959]

You know....Darwin got it right. But.....he also followed it through to a wrong end.

Think about it this way.......

You are a computer programmer. You write code that works beautifully, but, when you write the final line, you put it at a dead end, and then everyone says it didn't work.

Just because you made the wrong choice at the end.

Evolution is real people. It has been real in animals for however long the earth has been here. It continues today, and will still be here in the future. Ever hear of a do-do bird? It evolved itself out of existence, because it didn't want to fly, therefore becoming food for all the other predators.

Where did Darwin get it wrong? Simple.......he was looking for something that looked like we do. Same thing happened when we started to first envision ET's.........we made 'em look like us.

Now? Well.....if you watch History Channel, you would see where scientists (through theory and observation) have postulated what ET would REALLY look like.

Darwin made the same mistake. He should have checked the Bible first, and read it with a bit more understanding.........

Yeshua (Jesus) said "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of Men". Meaning, if you followed Him, He would teach you things to teach others.

Now........take that same thought, and combine it with the way that dolphins react around humans. We have a "link". I used to see it whenever I came through the Straits of Gilbraltar going in, or coming out of the Med.

Also have seen it on TV, as well as at Sea World. People can actually communicate with dolphins. What other animal do you see that in? Not only that......but the only 2 animals on this earth that have sex for recreation are humans and dolphins.

Maybe Darwin got it wrong......we're not descended from apes, we're descended from dolphins.

so long and thanks for all the fish......

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know....Darwin got it right. But.....he also followed it through to a wrong end.

Think about it this way.......

You are a computer programmer. You write code that works beautifully, but, when you write the final line, you put it at a dead end, and then everyone says it didn't work.

Just because you made the wrong choice at the end.

Evolution is real people. It has been real in animals for however long the earth has been here. It continues today, and will still be here in the future. Ever hear of a do-do bird? It evolved itself out of existence, because it didn't want to fly, therefore becoming food for all the other predators.

Where did Darwin get it wrong? Simple.......he was looking for something that looked like we do. Same thing happened when we started to first envision ET's.........we made 'em look like us.

Now? Well.....if you watch History Channel, you would see where scientists (through theory and observation) have postulated what ET would REALLY look like.

Darwin made the same mistake. He should have checked the Bible first, and read it with a bit more understanding.........

Yeshua (Jesus) said "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of Men". Meaning, if you followed Him, He would teach you things to teach others.

Now........take that same thought, and combine it with the way that dolphins react around humans. We have a "link". I used to see it whenever I came through the Straits of Gilbraltar going in, or coming out of the Med.

Also have seen it on TV, as well as at Sea World. People can actually communicate with dolphins. What other animal do you see that in? Not only that......but the only 2 animals on this earth that have sex for recreation are humans and dolphins.

Maybe Darwin got it wrong......we're not descended from apes, we're descended from dolphins.

so long and thanks for all the fish......

Don't Panic. We can always hitchike to the restaraunt at the End of the Galaxy.

 

[KittenKoder]

Um, Biker, while your analogies are a breath of fresh air, and even very possible. I see the same behavior between domestic dogs and their human caregivers.

 

[manu1959]

You know....Darwin got it right. But.....he also followed it through to a wrong end.

Think about it this way.......

You are a computer programmer. You write code that works beautifully, but, when you write the final line, you put it at a dead end, and then everyone says it didn't work.

Just because you made the wrong choice at the end.

Evolution is real people. It has been real in animals for however long the earth has been here. It continues today, and will still be here in the future. Ever hear of a do-do bird? It evolved itself out of existence, because it didn't want to fly, therefore becoming food for all the other predators.

Where did Darwin get it wrong? Simple.......he was looking for something that looked like we do. Same thing happened when we started to first envision ET's.........we made 'em look like us.

Now? Well.....if you watch History Channel, you would see where scientists (through theory and observation) have postulated what ET would REALLY look like.

Darwin made the same mistake. He should have checked the Bible first, and read it with a bit more understanding.........

Yeshua (Jesus) said "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of Men". Meaning, if you followed Him, He would teach you things to teach others.

Now........take that same thought, and combine it with the way that dolphins react around humans. We have a "link". I used to see it whenever I came through the Straits of Gilbraltar going in, or coming out of the Med.

Also have seen it on TV, as well as at Sea World. People can actually communicate with dolphins. What other animal do you see that in? Not only that......but the only 2 animals on this earth that have sex for recreation are humans and dolphins.

Maybe Darwin got it wrong......we're not descended from apes, we're descended from dolphins.

so long and thanks for all the fish......

Don't Panic. We can always hitchike to the restaraunt at the End of the Galaxy.

we need a girl with a big thumb and we need to practice our breathing....

seriously .... is it possible one line of humans evolved from apes and another line evolved from dolphins.....

 

[ABikerSailor]

Um, Biker, while your analogies are a breath of fresh air, and even very possible. I see the same behavior between domestic dogs and their human caregivers.

Well.....that is kind of an interesting thing Kitten.......

Think of it like a Ni-Cad battery. Put a charge to it, and it charges itself up. Same thing with pets. Your nervous system runs on electricity, and, if you have enough built up inside you (shamanistic herbs help), you can transmit it to anything with electricity.

Animals also have an electric nervous system.

Spend enough time beaming energy to your pet? They will become attuned to your energy, and therefore (after a bit of time communicating) are now able to "talk" to you.

St. Francis of Assisi taught that. Only trouble is, nobody wanted to learn, so that is why witches (who talk to cats) were thought of as "evil" as nobody remembered the lessons from before.

Jesus talked to animals also, by the way.

But......the only place where an animal can come up to you (without knowing you), that I can think of, is a dolphin and a human.

 

[Diuretic]

3. Evolution is just a theory.

A theory in science refers to scope not validity. Any idea that has broad explanatory power for natural phenomena is a theory. It's a broad unifying prinicple. Like the theory of Gravity. .

There is where you really over reach...by comparing the theory that all life descended from a single organism ( or series of single celled organisms) to the theory of gravity. You're not the only one. I've seen that before. But to suggest that the overall theory of evolution is associated with the kind of certainty associated with gravitational theory is absurd. With gravitational theory, you can do experiments and predict what's going to happen then observe it to happen exactly as you said it would. That is not the case with the theory of evolution. The two things are not comparable.

I don't think you were paying attention either that or you didn't understand. The focus was "theory" as the word is used in science. One of the problems in these discussions is that someone will come along and tell everyone how a "theory" is just a "theory" and there is no proof. They get confused about the proper use of the word in a scientific context and the discussion spins off into fundie propaganda. I think N4's point was that "theory" in science is an explanation for observed phenomena and not some sort of wanker hypothesis as the fundie propagandists like to paint it.

 

[Diuretic]

The focus on Darwin is understandable. But I'd suggest that since Darwin there has been a series of advances in the scientific understanding surround evolution. Of course Darwin got some things wrong, heck he missed out on understanding genetics and had to let Mendel come up wth that, no-one is holding Darwin up as being infallible. But it would be useful to focus on current thinking rather than historical thinking.

 

[YWN666]

[/I].

To answer your query, here are few biologists who have rejected macro evolution:
Biologist Dean Kenyon, geneticist Michael Denton, microbiologist James Shapiro, to some degree Wilder Penfield, and Allan Sandage, who is apparently a very respected scientist in that realm. Not being one, i can only base that determination on his peer reviews.

Even Darwin admitted that "if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down"

Critique of Michael Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis"

Denton is a former member of the Discovery Institute, a group that forbids its members from contradicting the bible. Yeah, that's real science for ya!

As for your Darwin quote, you, of course, edited out the last sentence.

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.

Edited to add:

http://www.quotiki.com/quotes/13018

Origin of Species (1859). This passage has often been quoted without the final sentence.

 

[JohnStOnge]

I don't think you were paying attention either that or you didn't understand. The focus was "theory" as the word is used in science. One of the problems in these discussions is that someone will come along and tell everyone how a "theory" is just a "theory" and there is no proof. They get confused about the proper use of the word in a scientific context and the discussion spins off into fundie propaganda. I think N4's point was that "theory" in science is an explanation for observed phenomena and not some sort of wanker hypothesis as the fundie propagandists like to paint it.

I was paying attention and I do understand. I see the technique that was used all the time. There is an effort to imply that because there is a "theory" of evolution the idea of evolution is implied with the level of certainty as something like gravitational theory or other things that can be directly demonstrated through reproducible experimentation.

There are different levels of certainty associated with theories. The germ theory of disease is established with a whole lot more certainty than even something like, say, the big bang theory. As I wrote in another thread, I believe the theory of evolution. But it has not even been experimentally demonstrated that a population of single celled organisms can even give rise to primitive multicellular organisms; much less that a population of single celled organisms can eventually give rise to something like a Blue Whale. It has not even been directly observed to occur. Instead, what's been observed is a fossil record that is not inconsistent with the belief that it occurred.

 

[JohnStOnge]

The fossil record is very complete.

I guess the extent to which something is "complete" is kind of a subjective judgement. But there is no way we have even 1 one millionth of the information on all of the life that's existed on this planet. We have fragments of information.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No need, THEORY says it all. If it were so "proven" it would no longer be a theory at all.

And I will never believe I am descended from apes with out a hell of lot more than this and the so called proof science has provided. With in a species evolution is proven, it is not even close to being proven with animals changing from one species to an entirely different species.

And again plants and one cell life does not count. Nor do any bacteria or any of that.

Your correct.. you didnt come from an ape.. Humans are more genetically close to chimpanzees than apes..

There are inter/intra or "missing link" type species present today... species that can mate together but not produce fertile offspring.. These are often considered the transition between different scientific species. A donkey is an example.. Also tigers and lions have recently gotten together to produce infertile offspring, sometimes called ligons..

The fossil record is very incomplete with many gaps and missing species and 100% proof that some people require for evolution will be difficult to achieve..

The fossil record is very complete.

The species you see today are in fact the last links in a long line of links.

Why this continues to confuse people, I simply do not understand.

Well, since your assertion is completely false, I would assume that might be a good place to start looking for the source of confusion.

The fossil record does not prove evolution. In fact, it CAN'T prove evolution. It does not prove, or even demonstrate, links between species, let alone "a long line of links". And as for "very complete", you have GOT to be kidding. Well, no, you probably aren't kidding. You probably genuinely and earnestly believe this.

 

[KittenKoder]

You do realize that many fossils have DNA ... which can be used to "link" them up .. right?

 

[editec]

How many new species of dogs has mankind bred into existence?

A lot right?

Okay where are all the missing links from one species to another?

They don't exist do they?

Why not?

Because evolution of species doesn't work the way some of you seem to think it does.

 

[strollingbones]

No need, THEORY says it all. If it were so "proven" it would no longer be a theory at all.

And I will never believe I am descended from apes with out a hell of lot more than this and the so called proof science has provided. With in a species evolution is proven, it is not even close to being proven with animals changing from one species to an entirely different species.

And again plants and one cell life does not count. Nor do any bacteria or any of that.

You know, the entire purpose of the thread was to inform so as to avoid this type of uninformed comment. Read #3 of the initial post, please.

dont give him credit for even reading the op....more just his flash response to anything that differs from his limited and narrow world

 

[JohnStOnge]

How many new species of dogs has mankind bred into existence?

A lot right?

Okay where are all the missing links from one species to another?

They don't exist do they?

Why not?

Because evolution of species doesn't work the way some of you seem to think it does.

I think that there's only one species of domestic dog, Canis familiaris. Lots of different breeds. I got an e mail the other day from a guy I corresponded with in which he suggested we're getting to the point where some different breeds of dogs might be different species. Why are different breeds of dogs all considered the same species?: Scientific American