10 Ways Darwin got it wrong - The Conspiracy of Evolution

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+22 more 
posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 09:34 AM
10 ways Darwin got it wrong.
#1 The warm pond theory

The scientific evidence indicates that life did not and could not somehow arise spontaneously from some warm little pond, as Darwin thought. What we find from the evidence around us and from the fossil record is that, as the law of biogenesis states, life can only arise from life.

#2 The supposed simplicity of the cell.

......So it turns out that cells are far more complex and sophisticated than Darwin could have conceived of. How did mere chance produce this, when even human planning and engineering cannot? In fact, no laboratory has come close to replicating even a single human hair!

#3 His ideas about information inside the cell.

Because he believed in the simplicity of the information of the cell, he came up with a theory called "pangenesis," where huge variations simply popped out of cells at random—something that was later proven to be entirely false.
Everything we know about DNA indicates that it programs a species to remain within the limits of its own general type. Genetic changes that do occur are typically small and inconsequential, while large mutations, rather than producing improved and novel designs, are overwhelmingly harmful to the organism's survival.

#4 His expectation of intermediate fossils

During his life, Charles Darwin was puzzled over the fossil record. For it to back his theory, the evidence should show a fine gradation between the different animal species and have millions of intermediate links.

He stated it this way: "The number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory [of evolution] be true, such have lived upon the earth" (The Origin of Species,1958, Mentor edition, p. 289).

Yet faced with the evidence, he admitted: "The distinctiveness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty... Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection to my theory" (p. 287).

#5 His failure to see the limits of variation of species

Darwin got the idea about natural selection in part from observing artificial selection. For instance, he noted the way pigeon breeders came up with a great variety of pigeons. Yet we should remember, they are still all classified as pigeons!

He thought that from this variety, given enough time, pigeons could eventually evolve into some other type of birds, such as eagles or vultures, and gradually, even to other creatures such as mammalian bats.

No one seriously disputes the notion of "change over time" in biology—heredity sees to that. We vary from our parents and grandparents—but that is not what the theory of evolution is all about. It is really an attempt to explain how microorganisms, insects, fish, birds, tigers, bears and even human beings actually became what they presently are through the passage of time.

Darwinian evolution—what is taught in the schools—is about macroevolution, or changes beyond the limits of the species kind to create another distinct species. It consists of three suppositions: 1) all living things descend from a common ancestor; 2) the principal mechanisms for the changes are natural selection and mutation; and 3) these are unguided, natural processes with no intelligence at work behind them.

But have we seen either in present life forms or in the fossil record that creatures are slowly changing and mutating from one kind to another? Never.

#6 His discounting of the Cambrian Explosion.

Darwin was aware of what is called the "Cambrian explosion"—fossils of a bewildering variety of complex life-forms appearing suddenly, without predecessors, in the same low level of the fossil record. This obviously did not fit his evolutionary model of simple-to-complex life.

Instead of a few related organisms appearing early in the fossil record as he hoped, there was an explosion of life—where the various main body types (called phyla) of living creatures seem to arise around the same time—in fact, 32 of the 33 phyla that we see today. Comparing this development to the progress of man's inventions, it would be as if a toaster, a washing machine, a refrigerator, an air conditioner and a car all of a sudden came on the scene with no mechanical devices preceding them.

Regarding the Cambrian explosion, Time magazine notes: "Creatures with teeth and tentacles and claws and jaws materialized with the suddenness of apparitions. In a burst of creativity like nothing before or since, nature appears to have sketched out the blueprints for virtually the whole of the animal kingdom. This explosion of biological diversity is described by scientists as biology's Big Bang" (Madeline Nash, "When Life Exploded," Dec. 4, 1995, p. 68).

This "Big Bang" of completely different creatures deep in the fossil record posed an enormous problem that Darwin had to admit undermined his theory.

He wrote: "To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer... The difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian is very great . . . The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained" (The Origin of Species, pp. 309-310).

#7 His theory of homology

In his studies, Darwin noticed that different types of creatures shared some common features, such as the five fingers of a human hand and the five digits of a bat's wing or of a dolphin's fin. He postulated that this similarity in different species, which he called "homology," was evidence for a common ancestry.

Yet this argument is based on an analogy that's quite weak since the fossil record shows no gradual evolution of these limbs from one species to another. There is, however, another and simpler way to explain these common features. Instead of having a common ancestor, these similar features could simply be the result of a common design.

We see this common design in how man builds things. We construct a car, a cart and a vacuum cleaner with four wheels, but this doesn't mean they have a common ancestor —merely a common design. Four wheels happen to give more stability and strength than three wheels and can better distribute the weight on top. We can deduce that a wise designer would have used this type of model of four legs to give stability and strength to many of the creatures that were made, instead of using three legs.

Really, does it make more sense that a designer used these same patterns because they worked so well, or that blind chance in natural selection and mutations just happened to come up with the optimal design after so many trial-and-error attempts? If the latter was the case, where is the evidence of the many failed models that should have ended up in the scrap heap of the fossil record, as Darwin predicted? No such evidence has been found.

Indeed, when creatures that are supposedly far removed from one another on the evolutionary tree share common advanced characteristics, evolutionists maintain that these characteristics evolved separately. But what are the odds of the same complex characteristic evolving by chance multiple times? Again, common design is clearly a far more logical explanation.

#8 His theory of human beings evolving from apes.

The similarity (between man and chimps) is now down to about 93 percent, according to more recent studies—results that curiously have not made many headlines. Stephan Anitei, science editor for Softpedia, writes: "Well, the new study concludes that the total DNA variation between humans and chimpanzees is rather 6-7%. There are obvious similarities between chimpanzees and humans, but also high differences in body structure, brain, intellect, and behavior, etc." ("How Much DNA Do We Share With Chimps?" Softpedia, Nov. 20, 2006, p. 1).

Again, the question has to be asked: Is the similarity between chimpanzees and men due to a common ancestor or to a common Designer? If a common ancestor, why are human beings so drastically different now from this ancestor while chimpanzees have remained much the same? The fact is, we are not seeing any evolution presently going on in either chimpanzees or human beings.

#9 His theory of the tree of life.

The only drawing Darwin had in his book The Origin of Species is that of the supposed "tree of life." It pictures the imaginary transformation of a common ancestor (at the root level) into the different species we see today (at the twig level). Yet the drawing is actually based on slight variations within a species after many generations, and then he adds some suppositions.

Again Darwin went well beyond the evidence. He took limited evidence about adaptations and extrapolated it to the idea that a species or genus (group of interbreeding species) can transform into a completely different one—all based on speculation. He cleverly said, "I see no reason to limit the process of modification, as now explained, to the formulation of genera [plural of genus] alone" (p. 121). He had to say this since no more direct evidence was forthcoming.

As Jonathan Wells notes: "The most fundamental problem of evolution, the origin of species, remains unsolved. Despite centuries of artificial breeding and decades of laboratory experiments, no one has ever observed speciation (the evolution of a species into another species) through variation and selection.

[edit on 14-11-2009 by dodadoom]

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 09:40 AM
#9 His theory of the tree of life - continued...

As Jonathan Wells notes: "The most fundamental problem of evolution, the origin of species, remains unsolved. Despite centuries of artificial breeding and decades of laboratory experiments, no one has ever observed speciation (the evolution of a species into another species) through variation and selection. What Darwin claimed is true for all species has not been demonstrated for even one species" (The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, 2006, p. 64).

So instead of a "tree of life" that begins with one or a few common ancestors and then branches out, there is actually an inverted and quite divided "tree of life," where the branches of life were very diverse and numerous at the beginning. Through extinction and sudden appearances, we have fewer kinds of life-forms today than in the past.

"Of all the icons of evolution," adds Dr. Wells, "the tree of life is the most pervasive because descent from a common ancestor is the foundation of Darwin's theory...Yet Darwin knew—and scientists have recently confirmed—that the early fossil record turns the evolutionary tree of life upside down. Ten years ago it was hoped that molecular evidence might save the tree, but recent discoveries have dashed that hope. Although you would not learn it from reading biology textbooks, Darwin's tree of life has been uprooted" (ibid., p. 51).

#10 His rejection of biblical creation by God

Charles Darwin was a man of his times. The 19th century saw many major social upheavals—political, philosophical, economic and religious—and Darwin was deeply shaped by them.

Some 11 years after writing The Origin of Species, he candidly admitted his two main purposes for writing it: "I may be permitted to say, as some excuse, that I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change...

"Some of those who admit the principle of evolution, but reject natural selection, seem to forget, when criticizing my book, that I had the above two objects in view; hence if I have erred in giving to natural selection great power, which I am very far from admitting, or in having exaggerated its power, which is in itself probable, I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations" (The Descent of Man, 1871, p. 92).

Notice that the first reason for writing his book was religious—for he sought "to overthrow the dogma of separate creations." In other words, he had no room for a religious version of origins involving the Creator God of the Bible. He promoted the idea that the world of matter and energy, mainly through natural selection and variation, might well account for all life we see around us—a philosophy of science known as scientific materialism.

Instead he pigeonholed creationists as having to believe in a recent creation and in "fixed" species confined to specific geographical regions. This was a straw man he set up so he could then bash it time after time in his writings. For him, evolution was "scientific" and was to be viewed with an open mind—but within a closed materialistic system—minimizing or eliminating any role for intelligent design or God.

Yet instead of the data accumulated during the next 150 years pointing toward blind and random causes of nature doing the creating, we now see it, based on molecular, chemical, biological and astronomical evidence, pointing to a supremely intelligent Designer of all.

Darwin's bicentennial has arrived but, as Phillip Johnson predicts, Darwin's ideas will eventually end up in the trash heap of history. Johnson concludes: "Every history of the twentieth century has three thinkers as preeminent in influence: Darwin, Marx, and Freud... Yet Marx and Freud have fallen... I am convinced that Darwin is next on the block. His fall will be the mightiest of the three" (Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, 1997, p. 113).


+55 more 
posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 09:51 AM
What a pile of crap u posted. Darwin wasnt wrong about evolution . Not to mention its the only scientific and most plausible than what intelligent deisgners would have us to believe. He may not have all the details correct when he 1st published his ideas over 100yrs ago. He may have made assumptions that may have been incorrect but the overall hypothesis is sound.
Yes there are still puzzles in the theory and some ideas like the evolution tree dosent seem to pan out as planned from his original idea.
This isnt to say EVOLUTION is not happening because it is.
And i prefer Darwinism to the intelligent design given by bible bashers as at least they have science to back it up wheres bible basheres just bash their bibles about and fail to use that grey matter that is inside their heads.

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 09:52 AM
Really I don't believe in creationism and evolution both beliefs seemed wrong

+12 more 
posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 09:55 AM
reply to post by loner007

Bible bashers?
Um , I can see your bias already.
Not worthy of a response.
Believe what makes you happy.

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 09:58 AM
reply to post by starwarsisreal

Maybe it's aliens?

Aren't opinions wonderfull?
The're like a wholes,
everyone's got one.

[edit on 14-11-2009 by dodadoom]

+16 more 
posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 10:12 AM
reply to post by dodadoom

Your source link is from a pro god/bible/creation website.

Also, the author, Mario Seiglie seems to have an anti-evolution agenda.

In a recent commentary on evolution by United Church of God Pastor Mario Seiglie, he points out that the archerfish is so uniquely designed that it could not have evolved with slight modifications... According to Sieglie, “The archerfish offers precisely such an example [of complexity], since several complex systems must all appear at the same time, perfectly and not gradually formed—binocular vision, a specialized mouth and tongue, specialized gills to compress and expel water and an aiming system based in the brain and not in the eyes. If any of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not hit the target and no survival advantage is created."

You can read the whole thing at the TVC site. You might like to also check out a counter-opinion at the Fundamentally Flawed blog. Here's an excerpt:

The argument seems to stem forth from statements made by Mario Seiglie. Seiglie believes that this combination of complex systems in the archerfish could not have developed through evolution, as they must have developed all at once to give the fish this ability. Is Seiglie a world-renowned marine biologist? Not quite… he is a pastor in the United Church of God. It would seem that this position gives him indisputable expertice in the field of biology. *

This reasoning would sound all too familiar to Darwin, back in his days, a scientist was also a clergyman.

It's sad to see that the 1900's attitude towards evolution is still prevalent even now in the 21st century...

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 10:15 AM
I think you might find this video interesting.


In my opinion, Lennox has more valid points and in my opinion, wins this discussion easily.


Originally posted by Chadwickus

Your source link is from a pro god/bible/creation website.

This is a typical ad hominem.

An ad hominem argument has the basic form:
Person 1 makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person 1
Therefore claim X is false


Logically that's completely false and irrelevant.

[edit on 14-11-2009 by vasaga]

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 10:35 AM
reply to post by dodadoom

The first point about the "warm pool theory is wrong" is absolute nonsense! Please do your homework. I stopped reading after that because I knew it was going to be creationist pseudo-science propaganda.

From www.wired.com...

A fundamental but elusive step in the early evolution of life on Earth has been replicated in a laboratory. Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn’t explain how these ingredients might have formed. “It’s like molecular choreography, where the molecules choreograph their own behavior,” said organic chemist John Sutherland of the University of Manchester, co-author of a study in Nature Wednesday. RNA is now found in living cells, where it carries information between genes and protein-manufacturing cellular components. Scientists think RNA existed early in Earth’s history, providing a necessary intermediate platform between pre-biotic chemicals and DNA, its double-stranded, more-stable descendant.

[edit on 14-11-2009 by WorldObserver]

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 10:38 AM
If an infinitely intelligent creator created the universe with the big bang [let there be light] wouldn't that creator be skilled enough so as not to need to further intervene? The machinery of the universe would be designed so that life evolved as it did without any further intervention. Billions of years are an eyeblink to the creator [check your bibles] so the time is unimportant.

How many are willing to accept a not-so-infinitely wise creator?

Who demands a second rate god that has to keep creating things because he/she/it didn't get it right in the first place?

Now, explain again what is wrong with evolution.

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 10:42 AM
there were interesting notions in this post until #10... "the rejection of a biblical creation by god".

how is that any sort of proof that Darwin was wrong?

this is the same issue i have with all Bible folk... whose definition of god? yours?

certainly not the Lakota, the Inuit, the Tibetans, the Hindus, the Aborigines, the Druids, the Mayans, the Hopi, the Animists, the Taoist and on and on.

each culture has there own creation story... most of them weaving imagery, mythology and a cultural understanding. the Bible is no different. all of these stories have kernals of wisdom buried within, and each has its own cultural beauty.

i am no devout believer in the sciences nor am i an atheist (finding atheists as fanatical in their beliefs as fundementalists) and i do consider myself a rather spiritual person (one who celebrates life and its mysteries).

i leave room for all theories... whose to truly say which theory/story/myth is 100% unfallibly accurate. to refute the many wisdoms science has provided just to propogate an agenda seems ignorant. yet to deny the wonder and mystery and insight that spiritual myths provide seems equally ignorant.

so on this thread, instead of having an honest debate about the flaws (and merits) of Darwin's notions, we are getting evangelized.

and that is why so may of us have a knee jerk reaction to those with a Bible agenda. myopic seems the right word.

and that's my 2 cents.

[edit on 14-11-2009 by mythos]

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 10:42 AM
reply to post by Chadwickus

Your source link is from a pro god/bible/creation website.

Of course, what did you expect a satan worshiper website?

Also, the author, Mario Seiglie seems to have an anti-evolution agenda.

Thats why its up to each of us to use our God given brain to decide
whats real to us, in our life and experience. Or not.
God had saved my life many times and also blessed me many times.
Just a personal experience. No biggie if you can't relate.
Bash the messenger and not the message?
Oldest trick in the book.
If you read the entire article there is information from biologists,
AND agnostics as well.

This reasoning would sound all too familiar to Darwin, back in his days, a scientist was also a clergyman.

Darwin himsles admits there are numerous flaws in his arguement.
(read the entire article before commenting like the bible bashers do)!

It's sad to see that the 1900's attitude towards evolution is still prevalent even now in the 21st century...

I agree considering his ideas are outdated and scientifically proven wrong.
Its called DNA eveidence. You may have heard of it by now?

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 10:44 AM
Science is wrong all the time, but atleast we can correct our mistakes.

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 10:45 AM
reply to post by WorldObserver

You should have kept reading before commenting.
I know I am guilty of this too...
What about #4 and #5?

+7 more 
posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 10:46 AM
Ad-Homenim? They old "your using a fallacy" argument, which is itself a fallacy. I sure as hell wouldn't ask advice from a baker on vehicle repair, so why expect a bible bashing, Darwin hating, creationist to be objective about evolution?

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 10:47 AM
reply to post by pteridine

Very good question!
I dont suppose it would be so we could learn something?
Thanks everyone fro your replies.
Even if most of them are just knee jerk reactions to internal belief conflicts.

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 10:48 AM
reply to post by mythos

Very nice post!
Thank you for taking the time and for saying
this is why we are here, not to bash but learn.

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 10:49 AM

Originally posted by vasaga
This is a typical ad hominem.

An ad hominem argument has the basic form:
Person 1 makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person 1
Therefore claim X is false


Logically that's completely false and irrelevant.

Consider this, I was replying to this post:

Originally posted by dodadoom
Bible bashers?
Um , I can see your bias already.
Not worthy of a response.
Believe what makes you happy.

Firstly, one can agree that the OP source is in fact from a site run by (not so eloquently put) bible bashers. The OP decides to ignore the rest of the post by loner007 on the basis that they must be biased...

Is that logical?



The OP has dismissed the opinion of an opposing argument because they believe that they are biased against creationists.

My post was aimed to show that the author of this list is also biased in his opinions, I never said they was false, so your accusations of an ad hominem argument are baseless.

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 10:50 AM
reply to post by quackers

Is it is bible bashing or thumping?
Oh labels are fun and sometimes informative.
Unfortunatley for some, they belong on cans and not on this thread.
Thank you.
P.S. Just shows how mixed up we are!

Is that like sick actually means good now or something?

[edit on 14-11-2009 by dodadoom]

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 10:52 AM
reply to post by dodadoom

it is a slippery slope, this debate of faiths (and theories), but as you have said, we are here to learn.

so gratitude for the gratitude.

PS i still don't think #10 is a very valid reason why Darwin might be wrong

new topics
top topics
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in