Holes in the theory of evolution

[Coloradomtnman]

Other than possibly small scale genetic changes observed by researchers, little if any hard, physical evidence exists for evolution on a global scale.

Most of the evidence is inference (ex. using assumptions to fill in the gaps); there isn't for example any physical evidence of apes evolving from microscopic organisms.

So why is the theory of evolution so often taken as absolute truth despite there being relatively little hard, physical evidence to support such as massive conclusion?

First of all, you are not well informed about the theories of evolution.

Secondly, inference is a perfectly valid method in scientific study. Without it we would not have the theories of relativity, quantum mechanics, atomic theory, or germ theory, just to name a few.

Lastly, the theories of evolution are explanations, descriptions, and predictive tools of hard data of the fact of evolution. Organisms evolve. No biologist thinks differently.

Inferring small genetic changes between descendants of a species to mean that the entire diversity of life originated solely from natural selection is a huge inference.

Biologists do not infer commom ancestry only from small genetic changes between descendants of a species. There is, among other lines of evidence, morphology and especially genetics. See retrovirus DNA signatures.

To infer that there is some arbitrary boundary where evolution stops so that one species, an arbitrary category used only by people, doesn't evolve into a new one is without logical basis. Also, natural selection is not the only theory of evolution; see sexual selection, genetic drift, etc.

Why is it only this one scientific theory with which religious fundamentalists have an issue? Relativity is currently incompatible with quantum mechanics. Why don't religious fundamentalists take issue with that, being such scientifically critical thinkers?

If someone produces a video recording of a fruit fly turning into a chimpanzee then that would be a lot more credible evidence than what currently exist, most of which I believe is just logical assumption versus direct observation.

Theories like gravity can be observed on a daily basis, while evolution is something postulated to have primary happened in the very distant past; so there's a big difference in terms of tangible evidence.

Gravity is observed daily, not its theory. There is barely a theory of gravity. Is it a quality of mass's effect on space time or a particle or a particle's effect on space time or other bodies of mass?

Evolution is also observed on a daily basis: do you appear identical to your parents? No? That is evolution. Did you get your flu shots this year? You should. That is also evolution.

No one has directly observed an atom. Does that pass muster for you? You accept evidence at a reasonable standard when it comes to other scientific theories, but with evolutionary theories you won't accept even obvious supporting evidence. Your standard is unreasonably high. Impossibly high. That is your bias.

 

[alpine]

Other than possibly small scale genetic changes observed by researchers, little if any hard, physical evidence exists for evolution on a global scale.

Most of the evidence is inference (ex. using assumptions to fill in the gaps); there isn't for example any physical evidence of apes evolving from microscopic organisms.

So why is the theory of evolution so often taken as absolute truth despite there being relatively little hard, physical evidence to support such as massive conclusion?

He thinks apes evolved from single cell organisms, overnight...

 

[Coloradomtnman]

so there's a big difference in terms of tangible evidence.

Absolutely. One can actually touch the evidence for evolution.

You can watch a boulder falling off a cliff.

You can't watch dinosaurs turning into birds, or apes into humans. Don't see why it's so complicated to explain the difference.

No, but one can interpret through fossils, tens of thousands of them, the gradual change of dinosaurs into modern day birds and early primates into modern humans.. You can't see atoms, but they exist, right?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Black, That is absolutely incorrect. What science finds, God used to create. Einstein discovered a forth dimension, he didn't invent it.
Long before Hawking decided that there may be an infinite amount of dimensions, the Bible was describing their attributes. Why do you think that you won't find science in the Bible?

Evolution is taken as the truth because it was taught as the truth. Darwin was a crazy man who thought his dead daughter was following him around.< That fact they forgot to teach.
Had we known then what we know now, namely DNA, we would never had heard of Darwin. To create a new species, DNA (which is wired to self correct) would have to make a mistake and then repeat the exact same mistake, without making any other mistakes for millions of years. If that were the case we would literally be walking on all of the bones of all of the missing links. Simply because our make up is similar to another species no more makes us relatives, than a watermelon's make up means it used to be a jellyfish.

You don't understand genetics or evolutionary theories. That is why they don't make sense to you.

 

[rightwinger]

so there's a big difference in terms of tangible evidence.

Absolutely. One can actually touch the evidence for evolution.

You can watch a boulder falling off a cliff.

You can't watch dinosaurs turning into birds, or apes into humans. Don't see why it's so complicated to explain the difference.

Sure you can watch

We have been collecting fossil evidence for over 100 years. That evidence definitively shows that at the earliest emergence of life there were no dinosaurs, no birds, no man....just simple creatures
By looking at Rock strata collected from around the world, we can watch evolution as it unfolds. See more complex creatures evolve and take form...see some creatures die out
We can watch as common ancestors evolve into multiple species

 

[The Irish Ram]

Black, That is absolutely incorrect. What science finds, God used to create. Einstein discovered a forth dimension, he didn't invent it.
Long before Hawking decided that there may be an infinite amount of dimensions, the Bible was describing their attributes. Why do you think that you won't find science in the Bible?

Evolution is taken as the truth because it was taught as the truth. Darwin was a crazy man who thought his dead daughter was following him around.< That fact they forgot to teach.
Had we known then what we know now, namely DNA, we would never had heard of Darwin. To create a new species, DNA (which is wired to self correct) would have to make a mistake and then repeat the exact same mistake, without making any other mistakes for millions of years. If that were the case we would literally be walking on all of the bones of all of the missing links. Simply because our make up is similar to another species no more makes us relatives, than a watermelon's make up means it used to be a jellyfish.

You don't understand genetics or evolutionary theories. That is why they don't make sense to you.

Your assumption of my grasp of genetics and evolution is without merit. I understand genetics and theories just fine. It was crazy Darwin that didn't understand genetics. He didn't know that even a single celled amoeba has complex DNA from the git go. Lots of things escaped Darwin. There is the eye, extremely complex from the beginning.
Monkeys continue to remain monkeys. Neanderthals didn't mutate into modern man. The two co-existed. One ceased to exist. They did not morph.

 

[cnm]

There is the eye, extremely complex from the beginning.

No, starting merely as a light sensitive patch. Very simple at the beginning. I think his assumption of your grasp of genetics is spot on.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Black, That is absolutely incorrect. What science finds, God used to create. Einstein discovered a forth dimension, he didn't invent it.
Long before Hawking decided that there may be an infinite amount of dimensions, the Bible was describing their attributes. Why do you think that you won't find science in the Bible?

Evolution is taken as the truth because it was taught as the truth. Darwin was a crazy man who thought his dead daughter was following him around.< That fact they forgot to teach.
Had we known then what we know now, namely DNA, we would never had heard of Darwin. To create a new species, DNA (which is wired to self correct) would have to make a mistake and then repeat the exact same mistake, without making any other mistakes for millions of years. If that were the case we would literally be walking on all of the bones of all of the missing links. Simply because our make up is similar to another species no more makes us relatives, than a watermelon's make up means it used to be a jellyfish.

You don't understand genetics or evolutionary theories. That is why they don't make sense to you.

Your assumption of my grasp of genetics and evolution is without merit. I understand genetics and theories just fine. It was crazy Darwin that didn't understand genetics. He didn't know that even a single celled amoeba has complex DNA from the git go. Lots of things escaped Darwin. There is the eye, extremely complex from the beginning.
Monkeys continue to remain monkeys. Neanderthals didn't mutate into modern man. The two co-existed. One ceased to exist. They did not morph.

The eye is not extremely complex from the beginning.

Murex: evolution of the eye

Darwin didn't understand genetics and yet genetics has supported his theory. Isn't that incredible?

No scientific theory proposes that homo neandertalis evolved into homo sapiens sapiens. There is, however, significant genetic evidence that the two interbred. Red heads have neanderthal genes.

You just proved that you know neither genetics nor the theories of evolution well enough to understand either. Especially the theories of evolution.

 

[sealybobo]

Other than possibly small scale genetic changes observed by researchers, little if any hard, physical evidence exists for evolution on a global scale.

Most of the evidence is inference (ex. using assumptions to fill in the gaps); there isn't for example any physical evidence of apes evolving from microscopic organisms.

So why is the theory of evolution so often taken as absolute truth despite there being relatively little hard, physical evidence to support such as massive conclusion?

First there is so much evidence and facts you don't know. Add it all up = evolution is real.

You never saw oj Simpson kill, did you? Yet you know he did it. How do you know?

 

[sealybobo]

Evolution is a FACT

God is a theory

Not a scientific theory. Gods still a hypothesis. Or a common theory. There is a difference

 

[sealybobo]

Other than possibly small scale genetic changes observed by researchers, little if any hard, physical evidence exists for evolution on a global scale.

Most of the evidence is inference (ex. using assumptions to fill in the gaps); there isn't for example any physical evidence of apes evolving from microscopic organisms.

So why is the theory of evolution so often taken as absolute truth despite there being relatively little hard, physical evidence to support such as massive conclusion?

First of all, you are not well informed about the theories of evolution.

Secondly, inference is a perfectly valid method in scientific study. Without it we would not have the theories of relativity, quantum mechanics, atomic theory, or germ theory, just to name a few.

Lastly, the theories of evolution are explanations, descriptions, and predictive tools of hard data of the fact of evolution. Organisms evolve. No biologist thinks differently.

Inferring small genetic changes between descendants of a species to mean that the entire diversity of life originated solely from natural selection is a huge inference.

Biologists do not infer commom ancestry only from small genetic changes between descendants of a species. There is, among other lines of evidence, morphology and especially genetics. See retrovirus DNA signatures.

To infer that there is some arbitrary boundary where evolution stops so that one species, an arbitrary category used only by people, doesn't evolve into a new one is without logical basis. Also, natural selection is not the only theory of evolution; see sexual selection, genetic drift, etc.

Why is it only this one scientific theory with which religious fundamentalists have an issue? Relativity is currently incompatible with quantum mechanics. Why don't religious fundamentalists take issue with that, being such scientifically critical thinkers?

If someone produces a video recording of a fruit fly turning into a chimpanzee then that would be a lot more credible evidence than what currently exist, most of which I believe is just logical assumption versus direct observation.

Theories like gravity can be observed on a daily basis, while evolution is something postulated to have primary happened in the very distant past; so there's a big difference in terms of tangible evidence.

How about a moth turning into a butterfly? If that can happen in a month what can happen in 1 million years

 

[sealybobo]

Not really; most of the actual physical evidence is simply fossil record, some transitional species, vestigal parts, etc - but these are only bits and pieces.

And they are evident.

Scientific theory is just observations subject to change. No one's obligated to believe something simply because it is in consensus with the scientific establishment.

Treating it as absolute truth is Scientism, not science; so who's the retard?

Scientism is a made up word to stifle debate.

Scientists, like everyone, do not believe all knowledge is only valid through science. Science is simply a tool to obtain unbiased information and understanding of reality but does not apply to all aspects of reality such as personal or subjective meaning.

Believing in a scientific theory is doing science wrong. I do not believe in scientific theories. I tentatively hold theories as useful models for understanding until they are no longer useful.

Finally, scientific theories are primarily predictive tools. If the predictions prove inaccurate the tool is no longer useful and discarded. The theories of evolution have been, more so than any other theory, tested for over 150 years. These theories are still the most predominant predictive tool used by biologists. The tool has yet to prove inaccurate.

150 years of tested theories and new facts discovered vs 1 guy coming down from a mountain claiming God talked to him. And when people didn't believe him God performed miracles to give them proof.

Even back then people were practicing scientism. Lol

 

[sealybobo]

Other than possibly small scale genetic changes observed by researchers, little if any hard, physical evidence exists for evolution on a global scale.

Most of the evidence is inference (ex. using assumptions to fill in the gaps); there isn't for example any physical evidence of apes evolving from microscopic organisms.

So why is the theory of evolution so often taken as absolute truth despite there being relatively little hard, physical evidence to support such as massive conclusion?

He thinks apes evolved from single cell organisms, overnight...

Like a butterfly?

Actually, why on one hand does he mock the idea a single cell organism turned into an ape overnight but supports the idea God put humans and all the other animals on earth in a week?

Funny thing is when they accept evolution they'll just assume thats how God did it. In other words creationism will become just another allegory in the bible. The bible is full of them. Even Jesus is an allegory

 

[The Irish Ram]

There is the eye, extremely complex from the beginning.

No, starting merely as a light sensitive patch. Very simple at the beginning. I think his assumption of your grasp of genetics is spot on.

In that case you don't understand the eye.

 

[alpine]

There is the eye, extremely complex from the beginning.

No, starting merely as a light sensitive patch. Very simple at the beginning. I think his assumption of your grasp of genetics is spot on.

In that case you don't understand the eye.

What a coincidences, we came to the same conclusion, about you...

Eye, in fact, if was a design, is a very bad bad design to begin with...

Either it was not designed,
or the designer was drunk while designing...

 

[alpine]

Other than possibly small scale genetic changes observed by researchers, little if any hard, physical evidence exists for evolution on a global scale.

Most of the evidence is inference (ex. using assumptions to fill in the gaps); there isn't for example any physical evidence of apes evolving from microscopic organisms.

So why is the theory of evolution so often taken as absolute truth despite there being relatively little hard, physical evidence to support such as massive conclusion?

He thinks apes evolved from single cell organisms, overnight...

Like a butterfly?

Actually, why on one hand does he mock the idea a single cell organism turned into an ape overnight but supports the idea God put humans and all the other animals on earth in a week?

Funny thing is when they accept evolution they'll just assume thats how God did it. In other words creationism will become just another allegory in the bible. The bible is full of them. Even Jesus is an allegory

Sometimes I feel lucky that creationists don't "believe" in evolution.

Otherwise it would be impossible to study this field as a science and try to bust and improve certain aspects of it...

 

[rightwinger]

There is the eye, extremely complex from the beginning.

No, starting merely as a light sensitive patch. Very simple at the beginning. I think his assumption of your grasp of genetics is spot on.

In that case you don't understand the eye.

What a coincidences, we came to the same conclusion, about you...

Eye, in fact, if was a design, is a very bad bad design to begin with...

Either it was not designed,
or the designer was drunk while designing...

If the eye is a result of intelligent design....why do I need glasses?

 

[The Irish Ram]

Laws don't change. Theories change with every new discovery, like the discovery of fossils that had working compound eyes, long before they should have according to "theory". So they invent a new theory, and decide that maybe, somehow, eye evolution was put on the fast track by randomness and chance. Here is what you believe happens accidentally:

When an eye begins to develop, even in the simplest of living things, the genetic code < (programed instructions) responsible for the eye, programs the body to start growing 2 million nerve endings from the eyes that move through the flesh toward the brain. And another 2 million from the brain moving through the flesh toward the eyes. These optic nerves must then find and match up with it's correct mate for the eye to function. That is design, not a crap shoot. The fact that the eye has the ability to transmit to the brain over 1 and 1/2 million messages simultaneously, at 300 miles an hour is just the icing on the cake. The working eye is complex at it's core. Nothing random or simple about it. It is a work of art.

Psalm 139:14
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.

 

[The Irish Ram]

If the eye is a result of intelligent design....why do I need glasses?

Cause you're not normal.....

 

[sealybobo]

There is the eye, extremely complex from the beginning.

No, starting merely as a light sensitive patch. Very simple at the beginning. I think his assumption of your grasp of genetics is spot on.

In that case you don't understand the eye.

What a coincidences, we came to the same conclusion, about you...

Eye, in fact, if was a design, is a very bad bad design to begin with...

Either it was not designed,
or the designer was drunk while designing...

If the eye is a result of intelligent design....why do I need glasses?

You want to know why you need glasses?

You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.…