Four Challenges to Darwin's Evolution Theory

In brief, I believe it is evident that species do adapt to their environmental conditions in order to improve their capacity for survival. However, this simple premise alone does not adequately support the claim that a process of biological evolution beginning with a root organism can and did cause the existence of a multitude of heterogeneous species. Nor does it adequately explain the origin of Man and his traits as a species. The following are fundamental challenges to Darwinism as an explanation for the coming into being of man and other differentiated species that raise my skepticism:

1) Limitations of genetic mutation and recombination. A growing number of biologists and geneticists do not believe it is possible to evolve a complex species from another through a process of genetic manipulation. For example, in their efforts to develop advanced fruits, vegetables, and other agricultural products, many scientists have found literal "boundaries" that separate one species from another, which cannot be crossed. Is it possible or probable that beginning with a simple microbe, an organism as complex as various species of fish and amphibians could be developed, and directly give rise to whales, elephants, camels, and man, even over millions of years?

In science, a theory is considered proven if it can be evidenced and demonstrated through repeated trials. Could a gifted lab technician given free reign demonstrate the evolution of micro-organisms into a fish, a fish into an amphibian, an amphibian into a bird or mammal, etc.? Why has such a challenge not been undertaken?

2) Lack of evidence documenting intermediate species. Should the process of evolutionary development alluded to above indeed take place, it would mean that intermediate species would systematically exist, connecting today's advanced species with their fish/amphibian ancestors. Moreover, evidence of these intermediate steps in the process of evolution would need to exist in abundance on each and every land mass upon which the end species exists (with the exception of birds or man that may have migrated from one land mass to another). If it is theorized that the position of land masses changed due to shifting of continental plates, then the intermediate species would need to exist at a time in ancient history before this geological shift took place.

Many scientists are not satisfied that adequate evidence of intermediate species does exist, and not just in the case of man and the search for the "missing link".

3) Aberrations in the proposed linear time progression of evolution. Volumes of compelling evidence in the fossil and archeological record defy the premise that man did not exist in the ancient past. Evidence of ancient and highly advanced civilizations has been discovered on several continents and below the major oceans indicating that man and advanced human civilization existed on earth long before the time period insinuated by Darwin's theory (e.g., beyond 25,000 years ago).

4. Biological evolution does not directly or adequately explain man's cultural or cognitive abilities. Assuming Darwin's theory passed the three challenges above, I am not convinced that Darwin's principle of survival of the fittest and biological evolution reasonably addresses the development of man's fine arts, literature, culture, language, thought processes, or scientific and spiritual development. For example, from where did Darwin draw the conscious wisdom to create his hypothesis? How would Darwin adequately explain the works of Michelangelo or Bach, or explain how Europe came to agree that the note 'A' should be set at 440 Hz? Man has such potential for wisdom and creativity, challenging the reaches of modern science to explain.

Thus, while I agree Darwin's proposed theory offers some systematic description of man as a biological entity and species, I am skeptical that evolution theory can adequately explain man's fundamental existence and nature.

Originally posted by HaveYouConsidered?

In brief, I believe it is evident that species do adapt to their environmental conditions in order to improve their capacity for survival. However, this simple premise alone does not adequately support the claim that a process of biological evolution beginning with a root organism can and did cause the existence of a multitude of heterogeneous species. Nor does it adequately explain the origin of Man and his traits as a species. The following are fundamental challenges to Darwinism as an explanation for the coming into being of man and other differentiated species that raise my skepticism:

HYC,

I agree with you about evolution, I would only add that the reason it continues to be promoted as fact so relentlessly, is because it is viewed deeply, almost subconsciously by atheistic scientist, in the same manner as Christians zealots see the bible, as an aid to their devotion.

Could you do me a favor and put some links in with each one of your points you made?

I would like to use your post in another thread where we are talking about evolution.

For example with point number one where you say, "A growing number of biologists and geneticists do not believe it is possible to evolve a complex species from another through a process of genetic manipulation."

Would you provide me a link to those scientist and their opinions, and could you do that with all four of your points please.

I would greatly appreciate it.

Hi,

Yes, let me see what I can dig up, either links or bibliography.

Rgds

[edit on 13-7-2008 by HaveYouConsidered?]

Hi,

Yes, let me see what I can dig up, either links or bibliography.

Rgds

===

(1) One example is Brig Klyce who raises this issue succinctly and has a long list of citations. In a nut shell, he quotes geneticist Lynn Margulis: "Neo-Darwinism is an attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics, which says that organisms do not change with time, with Darwinism, which claims they do." However, he concludes that an "evolved" version of Darwinism, or 'Neo-Darwinism,' is highly implausible.

www.panspermia.org...

(1) This study is less direct, but is an academic journal called Euphytica,

www.springerlink.com...

(2) An anthropologist Jeffrey Schwartz acknowledges that a lack of intermediate steps/species undermines the traditional Darwinian evolution, but postulates that perhaps sudden rather than gradual evolutionary changes could explain the gaps, as opposed to endorsing Intelligent Design.

www.everystudentpromotion.com...

Also, www.post-gazette.com...

(2) The publication 'Y-Origins' acknowledges evidence for "micro-evolution," or adaptation within a species, but surmizes the concept of "macro-evolution," meaning evolution by one species into another (the key principle that is supposed to explain man's existence), is undermined by a lack of intermediate species in the fossil record. The article contains a list of citations.

www.y-origins.com...

(3) One of the most popular compilations of archeological findings that challenge the time scale and linear progression of Darwinian evolution is Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson's lengthy book, Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race (1993; 1998).

www.mcremo.com...

www.forbiddenarcheology.com...

(4) This is more a rhetorical argument on my part.

reply to post by HaveYouConsidered?

The same four again, eh?

Those have been met. I do wish someone would put forward some new ones.

Oh well... we live in hope.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by HaveYouConsidered?

 

The same four again, eh?

Those have been met. I do wish someone would put forward some new ones.

Oh well... we live in hope.

A categorical dismissal without so much as a single reference or rational argument? If those four challenges have all indeed been met, you will be the first to point it out to me and perhaps the researchers cited above. Or is it that I should just accept Darwinism on faith?

reply to post by HaveYouConsidered?

What, take up the cudgels against these conceptual zombies you have raised from the dead for the umpteenth time? You must think me very foolish, or at any rate very idle. If it's counterarguments you're looking for, you will find all you need in scores of other threads on this site. Pardon me if I decline to oblige.

I won't ask you to take your time then. I am, in fact, new to this forum, so I may well have missed a long-awaited, silver bullet discovery posted somewhere in these threads. Yet I don't hold out much hope, as Darwin's theory simply has no dependable answers to these issues--hardly more than a 'could be' and a leap of faith. The issue of time progression alone would seem to render the probability of Darwin's theory at less than one percent, that is, unless we developed time travel, predated our own existence and then disappeared catastrophically. I see you remain unconvinced. Yet, as a great person once said, "Man is constantly improving himself and making new discoveries..."

HYC,

Thanks for adding the links this will be very helpful.

Don't let the atheist say your points have been dismissed it is not true.

Atheist like all fundamentalists become whatever they think they need to be so as not to have to face what they are.

Their arguments will morph from solid to liquid to gaseous, appearing to be something new and different but the same old thing in a different form.

If you think you are going to persuade anyone who believes evolution is the truth that it is not, you are misguided in your understanding of human nature.

We believe what we do in spite of the evidence not because of it, that has always been the case and there are very few exception to the rule.

Question the beliefs of everyone even the people who are closest to you.

You may think they believe as you do, they may even say they agree with you, but we all have our own world turning up in our heads.



[edit on 14-7-2008 by newday]

[edit on 14-7-2008 by newday]

Originally posted by HaveYouConsidered?
Man has such potential for wisdom and creativity, challenging the reaches of modern science to explain.

ID, ID, burning bright,
Rescue us from Darwin’s fright,
Beastly origin of our race,
Evolution’s dread embrace.

But what science or what art
Frames immortal hand, eye, heart?
Can we force religion’s claim,
Dare pronounce His very name?

Yahweh, Zeus, or Allah, then?
Yaldaboath, Urizen?
Raël’s ET DNA?
Hosts of deities at play?

Ask the Ichneumonidae
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Who created Heav’n and Hell,
Human creativity?

ID’s ID burning bright
Through obscuring fog and night,
Whether wielding Wedge or prism
ID is: Creationism.

Tom McIver

Originally posted by newday

Don't let the atheist say your points have been dismissed it is not true.

Atheist like all fundamentalists become whatever they think they need to be so as not to have to face what they are.

I wish someone would explain to me why those who support evolution, most of the scientific world, are automatically atheists?

Their arguments will morph from solid to liquid to gaseous, appearing to be something new and different but the same old thing in a different form.
If you think you are going to persuade anyone who believes evolution is the truth that it is not, you are misguided in your understanding of human nature.

We believe what we do in spite of the evidence not because of it, that has always been the case and there are very few exception to the rule.

By all means when someone brings forth credible evidence to support creationism, then the majority of people would have no problem with it. Then you can actually have a debate as to which is the better explanation. There is evidence for evolution none for creationism, it is that simple.

For reference, my dad has long been a solid supporter of Darwin's theory. When I raised these issues with him and presented some evidence, in particular regarding the time-scale challenge, he himself wouldn't abandon Darwinism, but began to wonder about "extra-terrestrial intervention" somehow combined with the Darwinian principle of survival/evolution. Some people who read this board are likely aware that there is actually a new debate going on behind the scenes involving extra-terrestrials, largely because certain aliens (whose track record of veracity is reportedly dubious at best) purportedly introduced this concept. It is true that Darwinian evolution has become the popular science, and to that end, perhaps it was never intended to be proven true or disproved. Perhaps it was advanced simply as a plausible story to glorify a certain body of scientists and to keep the masses from asking any further questions... I'm happy to go on record to suggest that Darwin's theory is inadequate and that extra-terrestrial interference, while it may have occurred, is also unproven at best. I have a rather strong conviction that there is a larger set of circumstances and a higher benevolent intelligence in the universe that would make both Darwin and the aliens turn pale.

However, bear in mind that it is difficult for modern man to believe in God (or gods). For it would require an act of humility and introspection on the part of man, a willingness to acknowledge and take responsibility for one's moral shortcomings, and a resolve to accept human life for what it is--fraught with tribulations, yet an opportunity to grow spiritually.

Originally posted by Cyprus
By all means when someone brings forth credible evidence to support creationism, then the majority of people would have no problem with it. Then you can actually have a debate as to which is the better explanation. There is evidence for evolution none for creationism, it is that simple.

You and I are here, aren't we? *slaps face* So clearly we must have been created somehow.

Whether or not there exists a God (or gods), from the point of view and culture of today's largely tactile science, can really only be taken as a matter of personal belief, for it cannot be "proven" or "disproven" with our modern methods of science. However, the existence of higher beings can at least be described using scientific terms, I believe. You see that our bodies are composed of flesh cells that are in turn composed of molecules. We know also that the smaller the sub-molecular particles are (e.g., atoms, neutrons, quarks, etc.), the more potential energy these particles store. A being whose surface particles are at the atomic rather than molecular plane of existence would be a body that stores more energy and is unrestrained by the human flesh body. The span of dimensions that this being exists in would be different from man, but if we could observe the atomic plane of existence, we would be able to see these beings. Our eyes and scientific instruments are themselves composed of molecules and based on the rules of the physical dimension in which we live, so we cannot readily detect these "higher" planes of existence. My understanding is that the Heavenly realms, spoken of by various traditions actually exist on microcosmic and macrocosmic planes of existence (time-spaces) that man cannot readily detect, except through "spiritual" experience.

There are people and entire cultures in our world who not only believe in God/gods (i.e., Divine Beings) but claim to have direct experience with the Divine, as well as a fundamental ability to discern good from bad, fact from falsehood, based upon Divine principle (or the Tao, as Chinese would say). Thus, their belief is not an idle act of faith, but, as they would claim, is founded on rational wisdom and lived experience, no different really than any other principle of reality they live with. This understanding or wisdom they have cultivated does indeed have a direct impact upon their health, well being, personal abilities and many concrete aspects of their daily lives.

From the perspective of some cultures, Darwin's theory of evolution would be considered no more proven than the existence of the Divine and is simply an alternative description and classification system (rather than verified explanation) for the existence of living things.

Why is it that creationism is changed by science and science is never changed by creationism?

Originally posted by Drakula
Why is it that creationism is changed by science and science is never changed by creationism?

Science is and has always been an exploration for truth. Theories change over time as new discoveries are made. If science didn't change, then progress wouldn't be made.

What was your inspiration for the user name Drakula, btw?





[edit on 20-7-2008 by HaveYouConsidered?]

reply to post by HaveYouConsidered?


Luckily we don't need a specific cultural perspective on a scientific theory for it to be a scientific theory. Evolution stands on its own two feet. It doesn't need defending. So far not a single creationist, with all the money some in that crowd have, has managed to offer up a single valid point against evolution. If you want to find the answers to yours, please use the search function and go nuts - each one has been raised before (many times), and each time has been struck down by those atheistic devices called "logic" and "reason".

And also your dad is not "the scientific community". If he was, you'd have a point.

reply to post by dave420


there is alot of things wrong with evolution, at least if you have any common sense. science changes, so this THEORY will change as well, it always does.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by HaveYouConsidered?
Man has such potential for wisdom and creativity, challenging the reaches of modern science to explain.

ID, ID, burning bright,
Rescue us from Darwin’s fright,
Beastly origin of our race,
Evolution’s dread embrace.

But what science or what art
Frames immortal hand, eye, heart?
Can we force religion’s claim,
Dare pronounce His very name?

Yahweh, Zeus, or Allah, then?
Yaldaboath, Urizen?
Raël’s ET DNA?
Hosts of deities at play?

Ask the Ichneumonidae
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Who created Heav’n and Hell,
Human creativity?

ID’s ID burning bright
Through obscuring fog and night,
Whether wielding Wedge or prism
ID is: Creationism.

Tom McIver

Wow. Just.... wow.

Do you actually understand what the two poems this is taken from are actually referring to? Or are you just repeating something because you think it's "cool"?

Originally posted by sir_chancealot

Wow. Just.... wow.

Do you actually understand what the two poems this is taken from are actually referring to? Or are you just repeating something because you think it's "cool"?

whatchyoo talking about, Willis?

It's a poem written by Tom McIver, a member of the Ohio citizens for science, about the vacuity and dishonesty of ID creationism. Was a simple response to the 'potential creativity' blah.

There's no hidden message in the music, but I hear if you say it backwards three times, the ghost of Paley will appear and ramble on about watches, complexity, and design. Indeed, it's amazingly like listening to the waffle of a contemporary IDer.

In some ways, it's surprisingly like this forum. Same old tedious recycled rubbish. Round and round we go. Kerr-ching!

[edit on 5-8-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by HaveYouConsidered?

 

Luckily we don't need a specific cultural perspective on a scientific theory for it to be a scientific theory. Evolution stands on its own two feet. It doesn't need defending. So far not a single creationist, with all the money some in that crowd have, has managed to offer up a single valid point against evolution. If you want to find the answers to yours, please use the search function and go nuts - each one has been raised before (many times), and each time has been struck down by those atheistic devices called "logic" and "reason".

And also your dad is not "the scientific community". If he was, you'd have a point.

My dad is a chemist and an aerospace engineer. He did not dedicate himself to the proving or disproving of Darwin's theory, but is more qualified to discuss it than most.

You, like a previous poster, say that all four issues have been beaten down. Please provide me a link to any post where Darwinism survives the third challenge, or, without troubling yourself too much, refute it yourself directly in one or two sentences. How are we to explain the existence of prehistoric art and artifacts of science that predate man's supposed existence as postulated by Darwin? I can provide examples, and referenced an entire book of them.

[edit on 6-8-2008 by HaveYouConsidered?]