Evolution Easily Refuted

Greetings - I figured I would get your attention with this title!"Lynn Margulis is Distinguished University Professor of Biology at the University of Massachusetts. Lynn Margulis is highly respected for her widely accepted theory that mitochondria, the energy source of plant and animal cells, were once independent bacterial cells. And Lynn Margulis says that history will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as "a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology." At one of her many public talks she asks the molecular biologists in the audience to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutationis. Her challenge goes unmet."Quoted from Darwin's Black Box by Dr. Michael J. Behe, pg 26What a concept! A respected scientist stating that neo-Darwinism is a "minor religious sect"! How does that make you feel if you happen to "believe in evolution"? But that is not all. Any reasoning human being can come to the conclusion that evolution is a fraud just by examining its basic premise.In his Cosmos series Dr. Carl Sagan walks up to a tub of water and dramatically dumps some coal and other minerals into the container. He then looks into the camera with a knowing smile and says quite matter of factly, "If we waited around for a few million years a human being will emerge from this container."The same idea is expressed in Walt Disney's original movie "Fantasia". In one of the sequences we see a group of amoebas floating around the ocean, and then, abra-cadabra - presto jingo, a black cloud passes over the scene and next we see fish. Another black cloud and we see whales, sharks, and dinosaurs eventually (after enough black clouds) I take it we will see man emerge from what? I don't know? Because today evolutionists deny that man evolved from ape.The "how" of evolution is easily answered by the phrase, "millions of years." This is essentially their argument against any type of criticism of their theory. When asked simply "How does a fish become a lizard?" they simply pass the "black cloud" over the answer and say "millions of years." Such an argument needs no proof because you and I cannot wait around a million years to see it happen.Evolutionists claim that birds evolved from fish - well - prove it! I want to see the exact genetic sequencing that would "mutate" the scales of a fish into the feathers of a bird. Evolutionists claim that fish became lizards - well - prove it! You claim your views are scientific and your opponents are non-scientific - then show me your absolute "scientific" proof that evolution is true. I do not want to hear your speculations, inferences or hypotheses - all of which are interpretations and not empirical scientific facts. I want to see the "hard facts" not your bizarre interpretations of fossil records or your illogical arguments that amount to "but it takes millions of years!"If you cannot put up then - you know what!Robert

Well gee, don't you think someone ought to tell Lynn about her views: http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/margulis/CheersJoe Meert

Greetings:So, Joe, are you saying she is contradicting herself?CheersRobert

Well, I see she's teaching a number of courses in evolution and working in the Precambrian on evolutionary topics. My preferred take on things is that 'quotes' are seldom given in their full context especially in debates and books with a political agenda (such as Behe's). I also mistrust authors who compare their own scientific discoveries to those of Einstein, Pasteur and other true brilliant scientists (who Behe unashamedly compares himself to). So, I don't know what Lynn said for sure, nor do I know the full context of her quote. What I do know is that she is teaching evolution and UMASS and is also working on evolutionary research.for example, here is another quote from Lynn:

quote:

---

All life on Earth today derived from common ancestors. The first to evolve - yet the last to be studied in detail - are bacteria. Scientists have now discovered that bacteria not only are the building blocks of life, but also occupy and are indispensable to every other living being on Earth. Without them, life's essential processes would quickly grind to a halt, and Earth would be as barren as Venus and Mars.

---

CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 04-07-2002]

quote:

---

I do not want to hear your speculations, inferences or hypotheses - all of which are interpretations and not empirical scientific facts. I want to see the "hard facts" not your bizarre interpretations of fossil records or your illogical arguments that amount to "but it takes millions of years!"

---

Umm, but what are your "hard facts?" No, don't give me fantastic religeous explanations, just facts. Do not say that "it simply must take a creator!" How do your hard facts support an alternative explanation of the fossil record?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:
... Lynn Margulis says that history will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as "a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology." At one of her many public talks she asks the molecular biologists in the audience to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutationis. Her challenge goes unmet."

---

On several threads on this forum I have noted my admiration for Lynn Margulis. She is a very firm believer in evolution and writes with great clarity on the subject. So how come she speaks out against neo-Darwinism? Not because she doubts the age of the earth, but because she postulates radical alternatives to mutation and natural selection.Margulis is one of the most active supporters of the Gaia hypothesis - that the entire biosystem of earth is intricately interconnected and that life does not succeed, prosper and develop by combat (natural selection) but by cooperation and symbiogenesis, (as organisms merge new collective forms.)Why does she refer to Darwinism as a religious sect? Because for her the theory builds on the western traditions of capitalism and christianity which distort our understanding of nature by placing mankind at the pinnacle of nature and over-valuing individuality.I'm delighted you have decided to support Dr Margulis' view, Robert. It is about time that the fusion of Gaia and a radical post-marxist socialist alternative to christian capitalism gained some more supporters. [b] [QUOTE]Evolutionists claim that birds evolved from fish - well - prove it! I want to see the exact genetic sequencing that would "mutate" the scales of a fish into the feathers of a bird.[/b][/QUOTE]How exact do you want the proof to be? Clearly there are different levels of exactitude. Perhaps you could give us other examples of exact evidence of past events you do believe in, in order that we may have a better understanding of your standards of evidence. For example, do you believe that the transfiguration of Christ, or the feeding of the five thousand happened? Perhaps you believe in Noah's flood or the tower of Babel?If so, could you give us the exact evidence, or the standard of evidence, that leads you to believe in that. I'm sure we could then look at providing you with evidence of similar, if not better, quality. [b] [QUOTE]I do not want to hear your speculations, inferences or hypotheses - all of which are interpretations and not empirical scientific facts.[/b][/QUOTE]Could you define an "empirical scientific fact" for us? It is not clear what this, or a "hard fact" is. Naturally, once you have clarified what you want, it will be easier to provide the evidence in a form that you will accept.Of course, now that you are a follower of Gaia and Lynn Margulis, and having taken the trouble to read more about her work before quoting her, you will presumably be more interested in symbiogenetic explanations than neo-Darwinian. Naturally we won't be coming up with any of that capitalist, christian, anthropocentric mysogyny you have now rejected.

Greetings:Joe: Since Mr. Pemboli gives a greater understanding of Lynn Margulis I will cover his ideas later.Edge - My theory is not in question at this time. You seem to claim that your theory is scientific and factual. I am asking you to show me the facts. Inferring "factual data" from long dead fossils does not constitute a "fact". In short, I want you to show me - without recourse to the fossil data - how a fish can become a bird. Your theory claims that such can happen - well - PROVE IT!Mr. Pemboli: I am well acquainted with the fact that Lynn Margulis follows after the Gaia-Myth. Nor am I concerned here at all with the Gaia-Myth. I am interested in Darwinism and neo-Darwinism as these two "theories" are the "mainstream" of the evolutionary-myth. The recent PBS miniseries/documentary on Evolution is a testimony that Darwinism and neo-Darwinism are still the in-vogue theories of the Evolutionary process.That I find Dr. Margulis an ally in refuting neo-Darwinism should not be a suprise to you. That she and I may not agree about the Gaia-Myth should also not be a suprise to you either. If you would like to start another thread based on the Gaia-Myth, then, fine, I will join you there. If you do not want to talk about Darwinism or neo-Darwinism then please refrain from replying here.Insofar as "hard facts" are concerned I would like you to show me the exact path of genetic sequencing it takes for mutation and natural selection to turn fish scales into bird feathers. I am not asking you for anything difficult. I am not asking you why a fish would like to become a bird, nor am I asking for serious details like - changes in the muscles, bone density changes, eyesight variations, or a whole host of other changes necessary for a fish to become a bird.I am demanding "exact" scientific facts. The Oxford Dictionary defines "exact" in this fashion:Consummate, finished, perfect ... 1. Admitting to no deviation. 2. Accurate in detail, strict 1533. 3. Perfectly corresponding, strictly correct, accurate 1645. 4. Precise; not admitting of vagueness or uncertainty 1601.If you are so sure that Darwinism or neo-Darwinism is correct then you should have exact evidence for your "beliefs" - evidence that is not vague, uncertain or based on speculation, but evidence that is exact, perfect, not vague, and accurate in detail.I will not hold my breath waiting for your exact scientific facts.Robert

Robert,I see you have decided to backtrack a bit. Your post started with 'evolution easily refuted' and followed with an obscure quote from Margulis. Now, you've backed off evolution and decided to attack 'Darwinism' and neo-Darwinism by demanding an EXACT pathway for some genetic path that you have imagined. Unfortunately, such demands are often paraded forth as 'see you can't give the exact answer' ergo your theory is falsified. Can you give an EXACT mathematical and physical description for gravity (including its quantum effects)? If not, then according to your (rather twisted) logic, current gravitational theory is disproven. The evidence for evolution is examined in total and no scientific theory demands that all questions be completely answered or the theory is wrong. If that is true, then creationism must also be falsified (or don't you hold your own hypotheses to the same standard?).CheersJoe Meer

The problem is, evolutionary theory is full of speculations and interpretations, thus it should not be considered fact as do many prominent evolutionists.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
The problem is, evolutionary theory is full of speculations and interpretations, thus it should not be considered fact as do many prominent evolutionists.

---

You are here making the "fact of evolution" and the "theory of evolution" as being one and the same.I suspect that the term "fact" is, to some degree, used to combate the general ignorance of the scientific meaning of the term "theory".That aside (and I now speak as a trained geologist, who focuses in what is shown by the rocks), there is a clear record of a progression of life forms down through time, as seen in the geologic record. The earliest evidence is for small, simple life forms. As time passes, larger and more complex life forms make their appearances. This is the "fact" of evolution.Explaining the mechanisms of that progression of lifeforms (the fact) is what is the theory of evolution.MooseAdded by edit: I must stress that my use of the term "progression" is not intended to mean that evolution is a process of "progress". The second definition in my Websters: Progression - a sequence or succession, as of acts, happenings, etc. Perhaps the term "succession" would be the better term.------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 04-07-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 04-07-2002]

Yes, but one does not need a replacement theory in order to get rid of a current paradigm. Also, the geological column is consistent with the idea of progressive creation. Thus, evolution should not be considered fact.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Yes, but one does not need a replacement theory in order to get rid of a current paradigm. Also, the geological column is consistent with the idea of progressive creation. Thus, evolution should not be considered fact.

---

So, does this mean that you're open to the idea of an old earth, progressive creation? Isn't that God guided evolution?Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
So, does this mean that you're open to the idea of an old earth, progressive creation? Isn't that God guided evolution?

---

I would definitely say that I'm open to it. But progressive creation doesn't mean that God used evolution, does it? It only means that God created all of the animals of the earth over a long period of time.However, I believe that evolution is possible if it is guided by God.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Yes, but one does not need a replacement theory in order to get rid of a current paradigm. Also, the geological column is consistent with the idea of progressive creation. Thus, evolution should not be considered fact.

---

I thought they were killed in the flood.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
I thought they were killed in the flood.

​

---

That's what I believe. However, you undoubtedly think that this view contradicts the evidence. Progressive Creation should not contradict the evidence according to your view.