frazzledgear
Senior Member
- Mar 17, 2008
- 1,479
- 544
- 48
Where has it been "proven" and what "proof" were you told existed and exactly when did the theory of evolution move from "theory" to scientific fact? ONLY that which has been PROVEN is considered scientific fact -and any theory that isn't proven can NEVER be "fact". There are reasons it is still a theory -and always will be!
Science is not a religion and there is NO obligation on me whatsoever to "believe" in ANY theory. Science carries the SOLE obligation of producing INDISPUTABLE and UNCONTESTED proof first. That is because my BELIEF will never prove a theory to be true or false and that isn't how its done. What is it people like you don't get? Scientific truth is NOT determined by CONSENSUS! It is the obligation of scientists to provide indisputable, uncorrupted proof and their failure or inability to do so means it is not fact. There are major reasons Darwin theory is still a theory and NOT scientific fact -and what they don't teach you in public schools is that it never will be fact. Until I went to college and entered advanced science classes, I FIRMLY believed what I had been taught in public school about evolution. I used to scoff at doubters and absolutely believed they had a major screw loose.
I don't believe in evolution anymore and think Darwin gave it the best shot he could given the level of scientific information that was on hand at that time. But he got all the major stuff wrong and only got a couple of minor things correct after all. If Darwin were alive today he would be the very first to admit he got nearly ALL of it dead wrong and would wish he had known then some of the stuff we know for a fact today. Because THAT stuff is what proved evolution was little more than an a cheap attempt to try and explain EVERYTHING with one exceedingly simple theory -that ended up actually explaining nothing at all. The ONLY theories that ever pan out are those that identify a very SPECIFIC phenomenon and tries to explain its existence. No one theory is ever going to explain EVERYTHING like the theory of evolution attempted to do.
That does NOT mean there is no such thing as natural selection -of course there is. But natural selection is NOT evolution whereby one species turns into another one. It only changes how the typical individual of that species LOOKS. That means the outward appearance of species can change over time -a horse eons ago looked very different from what it looks like today. But its species was still horse then and it is today. Only what a typical horse LOOKS like has changed -not its species. What Darwin did not know is about is DNA and WHERE on the strand mutations do and do not occur. The DNA that identifies the species is extremely hardy and resistant to mutations -mutations there are lethal to the individual which is nature's way of keeping the species the SAME! If it is "natural" for one species to turn into a totally different one over time -then why would nature build in such a lethal means of eliminating those individuals with mutations on the part of their DNA that identifies their species?? It is why it is a scientific FACT that two parents of one species can ONLY produce offspring of that same species. No matter how many mutations that affect its APPEARANCE or how its parts function -it will still ALWAYS be of that same species. Unlike Darwin's THEORY, that is a scientific FACT. That means it is also a scientific FACT that no matter how you want to cut it, with Darwin's theory, it requires you to accept that at SOME POINT, two parents of one species have produced offspring that are no longer that same species. There is no such thing as being a "little bit" different species. Your DNA and the President's DNA that identifies your species is IDENTICAL. Not just somewhat the same but IDENTICAL. It is why DNA testing involves only testing that part of the strand regarding how the individual will look -not its species. And with Darwin's theory, no matter how you want to cut it, at some point you MUST accept that parents of one species must produce offspring of a different species because there is no such thing as a "little bit different species". The difference between humans and chimps involves just 2% of the DNA strand that identifies SPECIES -yet it IS a different species. Not just a little bit different. Yet we KNOW it is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE for two parents of one species to produce offspring that is anything but its own species. Which means that part of the DNA looks the same no matter how far back you want to go and no matter how far into the future you want to go. THAT is INDISPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC FACT. Whoops.
What also does NOT happen -not EVER as anything remotely "natural" -is for nonliving, non-conscious materials to produce a living organism. Anyone who thinks that would be a "natural event" is gravely mistaken. The fact man has spent CENTURIES trying to accomplish that as even an unnatural act should be a big clue here and it has never once ever been seen to occur in nature -which means it is not part of nature at all. It is scientific FACT that such a thing would be totally UNNATURAL if it ever occurred! So a theory that posits such a thing as being part of nature should be recognized as the silliness it really is -unless you have a deep seated need to believe that this planet once had a magical property to create life from nonliving stuff but then lost its magic and it was never to be seen to occur ever again!! Man's efforts to try and create life from non-living materials has only proven how UNNATURAL it would be. So if YOU think a living organism arising from the non-living muck is a "natural event" when we know for a fact no life has EVER resulted from non-living materials -it is YOUR critical thinking skills that should be called into question.
Another part Darwin got wrong was the utterly RIDICULOUS notion that over time one species will turn into a completely different one! Wow -think about that one. It would mean it is possible for YOUR descendants to not be human at all! But we also know that two parents of one species can NEVER produce anything but an offspring of that species. No exceptions EVER found. Now the outward physical appearance of a species can change over time -but no matter how dramatic those changes may be, it will NEVER change their species. THAT is the part of the DNA strand that is nearly 100% resistant to any mutation. And when it does mutate, it is also exceedingly lethal to the individual even before its birth. It is nature's way of keeping the species the SAME! Which tells you that one species turning into another one is something nature RESISTS and not natural at all!
If there is no way to prove a theory correct, it is useless. If the person who came up with the theory tells you exactly where the evidence that would back up his theory exists and what he believes that evidence will be -then we should take that seriously whether it does indeed back up his theory -or contradicts it instead. Darwin said the ONLY evidence backing up his theory would be found in the fossil record -got that one? The ONLY evidence to support his theory at all would be in the fossil record and nowhere else. He said the MAJORITY of fossils would be "in-between" showing one species in the process of turning into a totally different one and the minority of fossils of a clearly identifiable species. He was wrong. Not just a little wrong but 100% wrong. Not only are the majority of fossils not "in-betweens", there isn't even ONE found for ANY species EVER. No "in-between" fossil for even a single species. And the fossil record has been massively added to since Darwin and still -not a single "in-between" for even ONE species much less the majority of them being "in-betweens". Whoops -in the world of science THAT is a biggie! In fact, in the science world that is some serious evidence indicating a major problem with the theory!
Another major part of his theory was that life has become MORE diversified over time. Meaning that with every geological age that moves closer to our current time, the greater the number of different species. Except he got THAT dead wrong too. In fact the greatest diversity of life took place in the Cambrian -and it has become LESS diverse with each passing geological age since -the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he theorized! Another major WHOOPS. There are actually more than 20 MAJOR "whoops" with Darwin's theory and ANY theory that is that wrong -is NOT RIGHT. That is how science works -not by whether I fall to my knees and "believe"!
We have far more scientific knowledge today than Darwin had -and I have no doubt he wished he had known a lot of it before offering his theory because there was no way for him to know at the time that a lot of the stuff he believed to be true, just wasn't. If he were alive today he'd be the first to admit he got it wrong because above all, he was a scientist -not a political ideologue demanding religious worship of a failed theory.
