TOE and the Reasons for Doubt

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 MutationMany 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:

---

Wolf-Ekkehard Lnnig, 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.

---

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.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix a bit of coding.

I will be back online tomorrow or the next day, i have many things on this weekendadios allhave fun scrutinizing my every sentence hehehI'll be back! Im sure i'll have a lot of explaining to do. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Hi Melindoor im aware of that, but the point is that evolution is said to explain how the great variety of species developed, albeit slowly, and yet the fossil record does not show the supposed changes taking place. It shows fully formed and functioning creatures as opposed to anything in its development stage.

quote:

---

A View of Life states: Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.

​

Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.

​

Zoologist Harold Coffin states: If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the majorforms of life were established fits best.Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.

​

Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.(New York, 1980), p. 29.

---

regarding the Archaeopteryx, the fossil has perfectly formed feathers and wings that are capable of flight. Also the wing and leg bones are thin and hollow which is what is found in birds today. It does not predate birds, because fossils of other birds have been found in rocks of the same period as Archaeopteryx.The New Evolutionary Timetable says that the fossils show very little evidence for evolutionary modification so obviously not all are in agreement that the fossil document the full history of the horse family. Some even think that the animal is still alive today...the fossil is apparently very similar to a fox like animal called a Hyrax in Africa.and i dont know about your 3rd example. they claim to have found transitional fossils, true. In Darwins day he wrote in Ori/Spec There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. ... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the [evolutionary] views here entertained"And after a century of digging and millions of catelogued fossils, what have they got?the Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson has spent over 40 years in the research field and he wrote in his book 'The Synthetic Origin of the Species' 1953 p.1212
"It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."
Granted that this was written in the 50's, but surely with thousands of scientists collecting fossils from all around the globe, they would have found many transitional fossils. i dont have a problem with this example, its not in contention. The salamanders are still salamanders, perhaps a different type of salamander, but a salamander nonetheless. I dont doubt that Genetics play a part in the diversity of species. That wiki article doesnt say anything about mutation. Mutations supposedly involved in evolution are small accidental changes that accumulate over a long period of time...im not sure these fish qualify, if they do, i dont see how. I used 'Darwins finch's' as an example because they were said to be a compelling example of speciation [the evolution of new species] but the fact that the population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth each time the climate changes seem to be more better explained as the maintenance of adaptation. Whole populations of small beaked finshes died out, yet they came back again decades later! Think about it, the finches didnt go thru an evolutionary change. It wasnt speciation...it was adaption and because the small beaked finches began to be born again, it must have been the genes that was controlling the change, not natural selection or speciation or evolution. The finches did not change to a new species of finch. thats not entirely trueWe could not have been created if we evolved. Its one or the other.

the salamanders interbred to much that the genes become narrowed down so much that these ones could no longer breed with the other onesi believe this is more about genetics then evolution, but if you want to call it evolution then go ahead. The salamanders are still salamanders.donkeys horses and mules are another example of how two of the species can breed to a point but no further. They are all still equine though. no, because he's a God of Order, not of disorder. If he wasnt involved the creation of the great variety of species on earth, then he cant lay claim to being the creator of them. Yet he does lay claim to being the creator of them. So either he did create them, or he didnt.its one or the other.

the teaching of macroevolution is built upon the claim that mutations can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals. But what has more then 50 years of research and experimentation with mutatins produced? Are you aware that since the 30's biologists in general and geneticists and breeders in particular, tried inducing and selecting favorable mutations to attempt to produce new and better plants and animals?Around the world they have put millions into research programs, using methods that promised to speed up evolution. after more than 40 years of intensive research, Peter von Sengbusch, one researcher said that the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation, widely proved to be a failure.By the 1980’s, most scientists had abandoned mutation breeding in Western countries because it simply failed. Almost all the mutants they produced died or were weaker than wild varieties.Wolf-Ekkehard Lnnig, a german scientist from the Max Planck Institute said

quote:

---

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.

---

Think about that for moment. If even highly trained scientists cannot produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job? if the finches really did develop into a new species, as the theory suggests, then why should they return to what they were?it means the species never changed...it was the same species only with different traits. therefore it is a problem for evolution by natural selection. i certainly do believe it is a literal account. God created each species directly, thats my literal understanding. He didnt leave it all to chance, he didnt start the ball rolling then let it all go its own wild way. No, "According to their Kinds, he created them" Edited by Peg, : No reason given.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

the point of Sagans quote was to show that he was acknowledging that the fossil record shows great design. The design in living things could not have come about by random mutations...the emphasis is on his description of a 'design' in naturehow can we look at the evidence of design, then say its all a result of slow random mutationthat makes no sense. Its contrary to the evidence that we see.

I wasnt trying to pretend anything. He is clearly saying that he sees 'design' in nature. Isnt that what ID proponents say too? There is design in nature and therefore there must be a designer??and why does he say that? It is likely because he is biased towards evolution rather then design...even though he acknowleges 'design' in living things. I can see that he is trying to say that the evidence for evolution does not imply a designed species, but thats exactly what the ToE is...its about slow undirected change as opposed to purposful design. He's using evolution to say that life shows something that has come from trial and error because he is interpreting things with evolution as the basis.

i think its called geneticsdistinctive traits are due to isolation of groups for long periods of time...we see it in the human population and we see it in animals.im doing a darwin and giving a theory without evidence here...im sure the salamander population was interbreeding...its genetics.

now your being daftthat was my reason for using the quote. it was to highlight that he aknowledged the design in nature even though he said the notion of design was disconcerting. i didnt say he denied evolution, i said he he acknowledged design.

if he didnt think there was design in nature, why say "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a great designer"to me thats an acknowlegement of design even if he does believe in evolution.

Is it?
Reptiles are cold-blooded and heavy/solid, whereas birds are warm-blooded and very light. Flight depends on several factors being present at one time and Archaeopteryx already had fully developed wings with featheres (no scales), and had special feet equipped for perching. Its bone structure has also been seen to be similar to modern birds. So to tag it as a reptile doesnt seem reasonable. Really? no one ever claimed Darwin's finches as evidence of speciation?except for a brochure published in 1999 by the National Academy of Sciences
A particularly compelling example of speciation [the evolution of new species] involves the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galpagos Islands, now known as Darwin’s finches.the article specifically calls darwins finches an example of speciation. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

good point mikethat is probably why many evolutionists will qualify their statements about the 'd' with a confirmation of their firm belief in evolutionthey might be in fear of falling out with the fraternity...or worse...being branded a creationist! lolDavid Attenborough likes to talk about how clever evolution is.

i said i was 'doing a darwin'you know, providing a theory without evidence lolTell me this, Can you have children with your any of your close family relations, and not expect defects of one sore or another?

i wouldnt put australopithecus as a transitional link either. It has a skull that differs from humans with a much smaller brain capacity
Some say that its skull is simiannot human. They are more like liviing living monkeys and apes then us.and that goes for Lucy too. Robert Jastrow in the 1981 book The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Unverse, says: This brain was not large in absolute size; it was a third the size of a human brain. even New Scientist said that Lucys skull was very similar to a chimpanzees.

i put that initial quote there in my msg 13the quote of sagan reveals that he sees design even though he doesnt believe in a designer...perhaps i should have made it clear in msg 13 about the intent of using his quote so for that i apologise.