Some Evidence Against Evolution

Richard Milton, as in author of 'Shattering the Myths of Darwinism'?

I hear this stated quite often. It's not true. Humans did evolve from apes, in fact, Humans are apes. What we didn't do is evolve from any extant ape.

I've seen this stated many times. It's not true. This definition completely misses almost all of the significant parts of the theory, in particular it fails to explain how Natural Selection accounts for the fossil record, and how it explains the development of highly functional characteristics and organisms.

To see that JIM's definition is false, imagine this scenario:You have a population of rats: some white, some black. Suppose every hundred generations the population cycles from 95% black, 5% white to 5% black, 95% white and then back again. This is a change in allele frequency over time; it is not evolution (unless the change can be tracked to factors changing the relative fitness of black and white rats).Descent With Modification, and Natural Selection are the keystones of evolutionary theory; neither are contained in JIM's definition. JIM's definition has no explanatory power; it is prerequisite and prediction for evolution, not the definition

Mark, Only in the loosest possible sense of the word evolution (i.e. change over time). Certainly not in the sense of The Theory Of Evolution. What makes the theory useful, powerful and compelling is Natural Selection, any definition of evolution that misses that out is missing the point.Yes, genetic drift and neutral genetic change occur and any general theory of evolution must take account of the; but they are not in themselves evolution. Thus JIM's statement "evolution can be aptly defined as the change in allele frequency over time" is false.

Mark,I think I've overstated my point. You are correct: change in allele frequency over time is part of evolution. However, I think any definition of evolution (in the sense of the theory of evolution) which fails to mention Natural Selection has missed the point.While you are correct in stating that adaption and Natural Selection are not the only parts of Evolution, they are the only parts which are capable of producing the finely tuned, adaptive and complex organisms we see around us. Not so. Large scale evolutionary change, particularly adaptive change, requires a coherent mechanism for change. ToE provides this with Natural Selection. Mere 'change' is no explanation.Regards,Mr. Jack

We're not debating the existence of god nor atheism vs. theism. We're debating the validity of Evolution. Get it straight.I don't give a stuff what you claim. You can claim anything you like. I, and most others here, will not take your claims seriously unless you can provide evidence for them.[This message has been edited by Mr Jack, 12-12-2003]