Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   TOE and the Reasons for Doubt
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 1 of 2 (526162)
09-26-2009 1:24 AM


We hear all the reasons why evolution is a 'fact' and all the 'evidence' which is supposed to make us feel compelled to believe it. Well this topic is not about reasons TO BELIEVE, but rather the DOUBTS THAT EXIST among those who study ToE.
I dedicate this to Melindoor to whom I made the suggestion to seriously consider some of these doubts.
No.1 Doubt the fossil record.
Darwin’s theory has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils yet do they show the gradual changes that he predicted ?
quote:
Steven M Stanley, The new Evolutionary Timetable, 1981 p92:
He said there is a general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another. He said: The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with [slow evolution].
Niles Eldridge says the same thing in 'The Enterprise, Nov 14, 1980
The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist.
Donald E. Chittick, a physical chemist who earned a doctorate degree at Oregon State University, comments:
A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.
evolutionist Michael Ruse wrote: A growing number of biologists...argues that any evolutionary theory based on Darwinian principlesparticularly any theory that sees natural selection as the key to evolutionary changeis misleadingly incomplete.
And even Darwin himself doubted the fossil record for in the introduction to The Origin of Species, he wrote: I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived.
Doubt No.2 Evolution by Mutation
Many scientists have noted that over time, the descendants of living things may change slightly. Charles Darwin called this process descent with subsequent modification. Such changes have been observed directly, recorded in experiments, and used ingeniously by plant and animal breeders. Seems plausible on the surface.
what is the evidence for mutations in evolution?
[quote][b]Wolf-Ekkehard Lnnig[b], a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany concluded: Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20thcentury taken together as well as with the laws of probability. Thus, the law of recurrent variation implies that genetically properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations. [/quote]
Doubt No.3 Evolution by Naturual selection
Darwin believed that natural selection would favor those life-forms best suited to the environment, while less suitable life-forms would eventually die off. Modern evolutionists teach that isolated groups eventually developed into totally new species. The finch's on the golapogolas islands was given as evidence of this. The finch's with smaller beaks died out and those with larger beaks survived during a drought. Seems plausible doesnt it.
did the finch's on the golapogolas islands prove that natural selection drives evolution? No they didnt. In the years following the drought, finches with smaller beaks again dominated the population. Thus, Peter Grant and graduate student Lisle Gibbs wrote in the science journal Nature in 1987 that they had seen a reversal in the direction of selection. In 1991, Grant wrote that the population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth each time the climate changes. The researchers also noticed that some of the different species of finches were interbreeding and producing offspring that survived better than the parents. So even after all the small beaked finchs had died out, years later, they were back again...what does this show?
Evolutionary theorist Jeffrey Schwartz wrote in 1999 that "natural selection may be helping species to adapt to the changing demands of existence, but it is not creating anything new.
_____________________________________________________________
Now i havnt even gone into the 'origin' of life debate which, according to science, is highly unlikely. I'll be happy to add this later...the chance of life spontaneously generating is unbelievably improbably...so much so we could say it is impossible.
I hope this is good for a start and hopefully will get you thinking that there is enough doubt in the ToE, to not completly write off the idea of a creator.
(im not sure which thread, i'll let the mods decide)
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 2 (526166)
09-26-2009 1:34 AM


Thread Copied to Biological Evolution Forum
Thread copied to the TOE and the Reasons for Doubt thread in the Biological Evolution forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024