The Lie of Evolution, page 1

Originally posted by kastinyque
that is exactly what I meant by pointing out that it was the theory of evolution, evolution has not as a fact been actually proven beyond a doubt. I also did not mean that evolution ruled out the possibility of a higher power, I was merely trying to say that there was more evidence of evolution than there was of god, I do actually beleive that there is a higher power, as I also beleive in the theory of evolution, but forced into a decision to choose between the two, based upon evidence, evolution would be my choice and the choice of anyone who is able to identify physical evidence.

I'm sorry about that; I was directing my references to religion in my post at the original poster, not you. I should've been a little more clear about that

According to Answers.com:

Scientists use observations, hypotheses and deductions to propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of theories. Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. If a prediction turns out to be correct, the theory survives.

Evolution has survived over the years. It has withstood about a century and a half worth of people trying to debunk it, and seriously trying to do so from both a religious perspective and a scientific perspective. That'd be a great way for any biologist to make a name for themselves.

Originally posted by ben91069
as Nappy says, there is no such evidence of transitional life forms at the present. From what I have seen of this, Nappy is right. If evolution takes eons to produce, then why do we not have clear transitions between species??

We have discovered transitional species. Archeopteryx is a prime example, being technically a dinosaur but with feathers like a bird. As far as I know, it's the only dinosaur (or reptile for that matter) with such a feature. There's numerous examples of fish with half legs. Even modern whales and snakes have remnants of limbs that were most likely once used for walking.

If you want a closer example of a "transitional" species, look in the mirror or at the guy/girl sitting next to you in class or at work. How many body parts do we have that we don't need? How often do you use your tail bone for anything? We have very little body hair compared to other primates, but when we get scared try and raise what we have for the same reasons they do and in the same way. Wisdom teeth are useless, and there's even a little fold of skin under the eyelid that's a remnant of a "third eyelid" like some animals have (a "nictating membrane" that's used for protection and to moisturize the eye.)

There's the appendix, which is entirely useless other than sending us to the hospital when it gets in a bad mood. An organ that does absolutely nothing but might kill us at the same time--from my perspective that's not a very intelligent design.

Why haven't we found more examples in nature? Well, think about it. This is a very big chunk of rock that we're on. Paleontology has only been around doing serious work for about a century or so. There's no way we've dug up the entire earth and given ourselves a chance to find everything. There may be species still buried somewhere that could entirely prove evolution wrong somehow. There may be the ancestors to every species that currently walks the earth, just waiting to be dug up with every step along the evolutionary trail perfectly shown.

Also, there are two quotes I want to put in this post from Answers in Genesis, a creationist website. These are from their page "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use.".

'There are no transitional forms.' Since there are candidates, even though they are highly dubious, it’s better to avoid possible comebacks by saying instead: 'While Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils, even 140 years later, all we have are a handful of disputable examples.'

This is true, but I don't recall Darwin putting a time limit. Where in his treatise does he say "The fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils in the next 10 years"? As I said above, we haven't searched everywhere; they may be there, they may not.

'Evolution is just a theory.' What people usually mean when they say this is 'Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.' Therefore people should say that. The problem with using the word 'theory' in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known ones such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity, and lesser-known ones such as the Debye–Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions and the Deryagin–Landau/Verwey–Overbeek (DLVO) theory of the stability of lyophobic sols, etc. It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.

The problem here though is that evolution has more of a substantial basis than creationism or intelligent design. There's absolutely NO proof that a higher being created the universe, whereas even minimal proof for evolution can be found in what few fossil records of transitional species exist. Even the vestigal organs that we humans have can be looked at as harder evidence for evolution than anything I've seen mentioned as "scientific" evidence for creation.

It seems the primary evidence for creation is a book. Well, as far as that goes, I can go down to the library and find books on evolution. I can find books that talk about travelling through time, books about elves and goblins and witchcraft and magic. Hell, if I wanted to spend the time, I could write a book that has an elven creator travelling back through time using magic to keep goblins from evolving. Would you take that as fact over something that is studied by some of the smartest people in the world?

Originally posted by ben91069
I agree with Nappy about this. When I was in High School, we were taught the "theory", but of course being stupid teens, we really didn't take it all that seriously. That was kind of dangerous in developing a belief system, because later in life, you usually don't think about creation/evolution much and you immediately fall back on the only thing you were taught.

What else were you taught in high school though? Weren't you also taught about World Wars and polynomials and how to write an essay? Why not single those out as well? Those are also, in a way, belief systems. Take WWII. Aren't we taught that Hitler was evil and the Allies were trying to save the world from tyranny? That's also a belief system. Why don't people try and knock that one out of the water? Why don't people try and say that there's no proof that 2 + 2 = 4? Is it because there isn't a book that tells you otherwise? If that's the case, let me know; I'll write it. I'll fill it with miracles and parables and rules, if you'd like. But just remember that if I do, you must not look into those, and you must not interpret the 2+2=5 as anything other than the exact truth, no matter what may be between the lines.