10 Ways Darwin got it wrong - The Conspiracy of Evolution

reply to post by K-Raz
Hi there.
I hope this is not an attack on my "trolling" post!
I thought we were all getting along so well!
Tell me you are not replying to me!

reply to post by thedeadtruth
Thanks!
I suppose this "baiting thread" is so long now, reading my posts
from the begining is now just laughable.
For if you did you would realize my take on organized religion.
Thanks for commenting anyway.

Would it do any good trying to explain the difference between spirituality and religion again?


[edit on 14-11-2009 by dodadoom]

Even if you don't believe in the bible, explain why you believe in evolution ?

Originally posted by EyesUpToTheHills
Once you know what is going on inside the cell, I don’t see how you can believe in anything other than a designer. If I stumbled upon a fully loaded car in the middle of the desert with gas in the tank and keys in the ignition, in fully working order, my first thought would be “Who put this here?” Yet scientists see the inner workings of the cell and have to endure mental gymnastics in order to claim that the whole factory just appeared from nowhere. How silly!! If you cannot see that life is a design, then you are just not being serious.


[edit on 14-11-2009 by EyesUpToTheHills]

While it is amazing.....Behe is wrong.
www.millerandlevine.com...

The most powerful rebuttals to the flagellum story, however, have not come from direct attempts to answer the critics of evolution. Rather, they have emerged from the steady progress of scientific work on the genes and proteins associated with the flagellum and other cellular structures. Such studies have now established that the entire premise by which this molecular machine has been advanced as an argument against evolution is wrong - the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. As we will see, the flagellum - the supreme example of the power of this new "science of design" - has failed its most basic scientific test. Remember the claim that "any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional?" As the evidence has shown, nature is filled with examples of "precursors" to the flagellum that are indeed "missing a part," and yet are fully-functional. Functional enough, in some cases, to pose a serious threat to human life.

Why dont scientist try to use their great intiligence to save the world instead of creating things that can be used to destroy it? The world is getting worse and worse a nuclear war could break out at anytime and would destroy nearly everyone a weapon created by scientist why would you put your faith in them?

Originally posted by HumbleStudent111
Why dont scientist try to use their great intiligence to save the world instead of creating things that can be used to destroy it? The world is getting worse and worse a nuclear war could break out at anytime and would destroy nearly everyone a weapon created by scientist why would you put your faith in them?

It was politicians that sanctioned and used nuclear weapons, not scientists. Yeah, a handful of scientists that created a terrible weapon means that every scientist is evil, nevermind all the medical breakthroughs and technology that make your life better.

And countless atrocities have been committed in the name of religion, so what exactly is your point? Maybe you should get over yourself and realise that it's human nature that causes the wrongs in the world, and not one ideology.

Yes, it is insane to think Darwin had it all figured out! Maybe life is a energy made in the heart of super massive stars or black holes. You know some super massive planetary being who’s remnants are now scattered about the cosmos. Some things can only be explained by intelligent design after all. It is ignorant for any person to assume to know how life came to be! That said evolution is obvious!

Originally posted by HumbleStudent111
Even if you don't believe in the bible, explain why you believe in evolution ?

Because there is countless amounts of empirical evidence that support the theory. Something that the bible doesn't have.

I love the Jeebuz/Gawd is real, evolution is crap subtext to posts like this.
It reminds me of the dude that claims the banana is proof god is real because it fits perfectly in the human hand, lol.

I LOVE these types of threads. lets poke around in the original post, shall we? (irrelevant parts snipped for brevity)

Originally posted by dodadoom
10 ways Darwin got it wrong.
#1 The warm pond theory
*snip*
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.

I do believe a quick google search indicates that the law of biogenesis refers to _modern_ life. Logically one could easily infer that more primitive life (forms) are not bound by this. since this is something easily and probably often misquoted, that one can slide.

#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?

primitive cells were also much more simple in design, lacking many of the current structures in human and many other cells. it is also theorized that initially life began as free floating RNA strands first and cell walls came after. depending on what version of current hypothesis you want to adhere to.

#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—*snip* we get it...

I can honestly see this as going both ways. likely 99.9% of all 'big' mutations are harmful, as seen in the rapid evolution of frogs from environment change, but on occasion, something useful comes out. over 1000 years, I do believe that this is possible, and can see this as the intention of the theory.

#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.
*snip etc*

no real info on this but I would tend to agree. depending on teh condition of the fossil, id put forth the question, would a somewhat improved stomach necessarily show up? at the same time, i'll concede, we should have seen SOMETHING. or have we? I'd have to research, we all know how eveil absolutes are in science.

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

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.

snipped out a lot here, but one partially answers the other, esp when combined with the previous. what many seem to discount or overlook is the timespan.

#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.

I'd say the theory is not 100% yet. Myself, i'd put it down to critical tipping points and a 'need fo revolutionary advances for survival' but that's me.

#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.

to be honest, i'm with you here as much as I'm not.

There is another and simpler way to explain it outside of your parameters... they were the most efficient in most cases, so by natural selection and evolution, they stayed and the weaker forms died off. much as I'm sure bliateral symmetry and a skeletal system won out over asymetry and formlessness.works for amoebas, not so much for horses

thats just a chunk...


now, not saying ToE is perfect, then again on its face, most attacks on it are logical fallacies in that since the base of it is imperfect, anythign thereafter is wrong. also, thr eis much more science and observation and fact behind it than any other theory, hypothesis or educated guess or dogma out there.

I'm sure you're getting to the whole creationism/intelligent design deal.. but honestly, it takes away a lot of credibility when one tries to prove that by disproving evolution. i mean, what the heck, are you a bunch of democrats or something? I heard they're the masters at mudslinging and muckraking.

Originally posted by dodadoom
10 ways Darwin got it wrong.

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.

Lol... This paragraph blatantly shows the author has no idea what evolution actually is... Very sad really, if you're going to try and disprove evolution you should really atleast try to understand the concept.

Creationist fools are really reaching, but when are they not?



Only a fool would believe anything a creationist says about evolution. Disgusting.

Originally posted by pteridine
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.

Hey pteridine, I totally agree. It's small minded nuts that can't equate an all powerful God with evolution. I'm a Christian, and I believe in evolution -why is it so hard for Christians to understand and accept evolution? If God created everything at the same time, place and stage in its said development, Life wouldn't last a week - he built in the mechanism of change and adaptability.

Darwin never discussed the origin of life. He never theorized about a "warm pond" where life began. AFAIK, he wasn't claiming cells were simple, either.

Darwin's theory is based on the changes of species, period. This theory was based on evidence found in fossil records, in living species in isolated locations, and many other observations. Darwin was a very careful and meticulous observer who backed up all of his ideas with particular examples.

Yes, Darwin did claim that humans descended from apes, which many people at the time found horribly offensive. However, no subsequent discoveries have been found that refute this idea, nor has anyone come up with an alternative theory that explains all the facts as well as Darwin's theory. If either of those things happens, then Darwin's theory will need to be revised or discarded, as may happen with every scientific theory. This is what makes science so powerful - the ability to make corrections as data requires theories to be changed or abandoned.

Darwin, BTW, was religious. In fact, he originally was studying to become a minister in the Church of England. While his observations caused him to abandon the notion that the Bible was accurate history, he remained a Christian.

The basis of evolution is change over time. If you want to see the error in it, just take out the factor of "time".

DNA is like a config file of a program. You change 1 thing in a config file of a program, and the entire program reflects the change. Change a piece of DNA, and you change color from blue to green and so forth.

However. Because of this fact, it also means that each and every possible DNA sequence has a pre-determined outcome. Because that DNA code will produce that organism no matter what "time" in history it is.

What Darwin had right was survival of the fittest. And things do "evolve" in that manner. What is able to best adapt to the conditions presented to it lives. As those conditions change, then so too does that which is best suited for it. In that manner things change over time, but I don't know if it can really be called "evolution".

Because in the end, the DNA for you is the same no matter what. If a goat somehow created something with your DNA, then you would come out as a human. Pre-determined.

DNA is just configuration code for the biological nanobots that carry out that code(cells). The study of genetics is nothing more than an attempt at reverse engineering a biological technology far more advanced than anything we have through trial and error. Change something, see what happens and document it. Change the thing enough times, and you start to see a pattern and you narrow down what that one thing does. But it's really not any different than changing a config file in a program.

Take a look at your own OS on your PC. You are running the same exact code on it as millions of other people in the world. What is different? Only the configuration of it.

reply to post by dodadoom


Thanks for your answer. I just wanna say for the record that I am a Christian Evolutionist.. I suppose.. meaning that I believe in the Bible as being Gods Holy Word and yet believe some of it was not meant to be taken so literally as in creating the universe and man within 7 of our earth days. I believe these 'days' are symbolic for a predetermined period of time known to the ancients.. basically it's a botched translation because this was the closest the translation could get.

I believe that a lot of Darwin's evolution could play a part in the creation of man even with Gods time line and still not contradict the bible. The Bible tells us in one part that a day is like a thousand years to God and a thousand years to god is like a day.

Plus it was known the Hebrew people wrote in codes, where you need certain passages to unlock the meaning of certain other passages. (as well as other codes) This was done to protect certain knowledge from getting into the hands of the gentiles.

Originally posted by starwarsisreal
Really I don't believe in creationism and evolution both beliefs seemed wrong

Intelligent design should never be Confused with Creationism

you know, what is most amusing to me is how evolutionists react just like religious fanatics when someone questions their belief in the THEORY of evolution (same with the big bang THEORY, etc)

the truth is that no one really knows (yet)

considering the evolution theory, my opinion is that modern science makes a HUMONGOUS mistake by avoiding to include the consciousness (every living being has it) from their equations

why?

because quantum theory demonstrated: observation affects reality!!!

www.sciencedaily.com...

which is logical: how could an insect look exactly like a branch on which it is living on if it isn't conscious of it's shape (same goes with many other creatures that mimic their surroundings)?

my conclusion/theory is that we are witnesses of evolution of consciousness, and body is just an after effect of what we perceive and think

as for the creator, The Nature/The Universe is The Creator and compared to what even the most arrogant humans have achieved since now (that includes futile attempts to create life from a warm pond - and that is the fact) it has a godlike powers, and we could say that it is the higher intelligence that created life (including those arrogant humans)

so, both creationists and evolutionists are right but wrong in the same time, and until they stop the fighting and open their minds there will not be any progress towards the truth





[edit on 15-11-2009 by donhuangenaro]

Originally posted by loner007
What a pile of crap u posted.

I love it when the so called "science community" show's up displaying the kind of introduction and demeanor that has made science what it is today!

Peer reviewed by his like minded peers lavishing this, this, "post" with stars galore as if the Zoo Keeper Dick Dawkins himself was giving one of his typically contradictory statements about evolution and "its various explanation's depending on whether or not they have figured it out which theory they are going to spread as the gospel ala darwin this year.

Darwin wasnt wrong about evolution

You're RIGHT! but only because he wasn't a scientist, nor was he the naturist on the HMS Beagle. To get the true facts about this theory and where it is today, one must start at the begining and do a little research on possibly the most over rated pseudo scientist in the history of science.

Darwin the man the myth the delusional dunce that got his name stealing his ideas from REAL scientists and merged a quasi lamarkian, blythe hypothesis and lying about his data creating the most ridiculous theory still being taught today. What a shame it has gone this far with so many students of this pseudo science, thinking it is real scientific, its cult followers act like Christian fundamentalist's only with more vulgarity, piss and vinegar, just challenging this tired old debunked theory.

Hell evolution doesn't even make a good hypothesis much less a theory.

. Not to mention its the only scientific and most plausible than what intelligent deisgners would have us to believe.

Mmmm well, I don't see how you can say that but lets just find out what cha got ok? You tell me, what is it ID'er's would have us 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.

It's sound? Here let's do some more backround on Chuck Darwin

Darwin is but one of many distinguished scientists yet he is not associated with any public benefit.

Unlike his contemporary Louis Pasteur, who is associated with the germ theory of disease. The media and many atheist's who for obvious reasons, commonly identify evolution with Darwin, this is typical of those who like to garble and complicate the facts.

Pasteur didn't invent the germ theory of disease or even vaccination for that matter and Darwin didn't invent evolution yet all tout Darwin as an epic hero, ascribing imaginary achievements and glossing over the all-too-human flaws and the many un-ethical, immoral and very "un-scientific" facts and events that have kept this theory from its rightful place in the land of mis-fit pet projects and silly ideas.

in 1909, Evolution theory was about to be kicked to the curb, debunked, because cell-based experimental biology had recently discovered an explanation of inheritance inconsistent with Darwin's speculative inheritance theory. But zoologist Edward B. Poulton ignored the conflict to celebrate Darwin's "remarkable command of the fine detail of plants and animals." Like most public schools do today, they teach a version of evolution that is considered ludicrous by those who have the latest information and I haven't seen many on ATS giving anything worthy on evolution but the same old speculations and faux facts ala the fiction faction of anti religion bibliobigots and Christaphobic atheist's who believe their grasp of science is so superior while the science they end up pontificating as from the proverbiall "E-Pulpit" is rife with dogmatic utterance and completly devoid of anything that can substantiate the alleged mountains of evidence they claim their is to support this draconian archaic and idiotic theory.

Now what is it about Darwin, this poser as a scientist, that he gets more accolades then say, someone like Gregor Mendel?

Mendel is the father of genetics and the only nineteenth-century scientist to discover quantitative biological laws, yet his achievments are largely swept under the rug and fast when talking about such topics as origins. Why does the science community, the media and the public encourage everyone to believe contemporary evolutionary theory is just Darwin's theory? I remember how excited I was a young boy fascinated about science and getting my first copy of Darwins Origins book in paperback. I remember picking it up again later in life and seeing how absolutley ridiculous it is but in Darwins day, it was STILL a silly idea. Even back then, atheist's hovered over this, this, "idea" as if it was the arc of the covenant. They would do the same things they do today and if I were to meet all the darwinists I have debated back then who thought they "owned" me, I could tell them all, I told ya so. The theory was in a quagmire and needed to be completely overhauled and the figureheads of this science like the stalwart good ole boys of science before them, wanted to save this theory from the brink but as usual, they did it the same way ernst haekle did it for darwin when his theory was yet again about to be debunked. What haekel did was out and out fraud but what is so unbelievably absurd is that his tweaked drawings of embryos are still used in todays text books with students thinking human embryos have vestigial gills.

To keep it alive it would require a major reconstruction effort where scientsis again tried to figure out a way to create a plausible explanation to fit the theory and a new mechanism for it to be believable and it was called "Neo-Darwinism".

What they REALY did, was reconcile the Darwin–Mendel conflict with an idea first thought of back in the 1920s, it was called population genetics. Most people think Darwin was recommended by his Cambridge mentor as the HMS Beagle's naturalist. They think he was there writing copious notes about what he observed and that the fauna of similar species varied from island to island. Might the differences be due heritable changes induced by "transmutation"?

Darwins return on the HMS beagle confirmed his idea but this time he brought with him an extensive summary of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's theory in addition to a seventeen-volume transmutationist Dictionary titled the Historie Naturelle which by the way, used data from island biogeography which is a thesis on adaptive radiation but most kids in school today are incorrectly given to crediting Darwin on this point.

What about Natural selection?

Alfred Russel Wallace was the first to come up with the idea and many think Darwin, as he did with so many of his other writings, STOLE it. Then with the influence of his father and his colleagues, they voted in favor of Darwin inventing it but a letter to wallace from chuckie baby would cast more doubts on that but alas, this mans memory MUST be EXHALTED!

Then Patrick Matthew, came forward criticizing Darwin and proved HE wrote an article, published the "natural law of selection" back in 1831

Darwin was busted again.

The legend goes that Darwin was the Beagle's naturalist but that too was a lie and one told by Chuckie himself on many occasions. The FACT is, the beagles naturalist was a physician, Robert McCormick and chuck was merely a gentleman companion to the Captain, like a steward for Capt. Robert Fitzroy.

Darwins exhibition is another liar for chuck saying: "Darwins Origins suddenly illuminated the living world held in darkness by religion, that "The Origin of Species caused a sensation," moreover, Natural selection, we are told, is the "foundation for all modern biology" and Darwin "launched modern biological science! That"evolution by natural selection became part of biologists language, integral to scientific work".

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The book that caused all the big hoopla was the anonymously authored "Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation", which came out in 1844.

As for Darwins book?

It did not sell out in stores on the first day as the legend brags. No, Darwin's publisher printed only 1250 copies of the first edition, as a matter of fact, Darwin never saw his book reach the best sellers list. After reading that drivel, it is no wonder why, he is lousy writer and the book was more fantastic and more absurd than the wildest atheist favorite they can use to disparage the bible.


The theory had to be revised again back in about 1900 when cellular biology matured to include the inheritance mechanisms, chromosomes and genes. Everything they had thought was a fact was wrong again, but that never stops the Darwinist from coming up with a cutesey excuse like science is auto correcting when what they have always done is create another alibi and hope technology doesn't gain on it proving it baloney once again. What makes me say its baloney is how they supress scientsist like mendel and many others who got "owned" and ridiculed right out of the scene yet later were proven to be correct all along. Surprisingly, those same arguments were very in line with ID theory, but I am not here to offer an alternative theory. I am here to set the record straight about the history of this science and how fragile and easily it fails the scientific method. As a writer Darwin wasn't a pimple on his contemporaries ass and didn't have the vernacular of science vocabulary mastered. One read of his Pangenesis theory will prove that when compared to other authors of his day who wrote about experiments in reproduction using evidence for cell division, meiosis and mitosis.

The Darwinist typically avoid topics of social darwinism and claim it is just Christian Crap but you have to remember, Darwin is largely an atheist created Characature of the real man, an urban legend and someone they have put up as their HERO as the Scientologist did with L. Ron Hubbard, only I think Hubbard was probably closer to being a scientist than darwin ever was. At least he created his own material.

So why is this theory so hated by theist's

Well take a look at what's happened in our Country and in the UK with Darwinsim as the superfluous addition to the biological sciences. The nineteenth century secularisation , including Darwinians, feminists, humanists, unions and liberals and socialism.

The idea was taken on by the Soviets who instituted the world's first official atheist state .

We all know how that worked out yet it is those same atheist's who believe that it is religion that has caused more genocidal deaths than anything ever done in atheisms name.

What seems to escape them, is that Godless nations invariably fall to this kind of respect for human life and where there is no religion allowed, their are no atheist's. So they didn't have to do it in the naME OF ATHEISM. They did it because they reduced people to what Darwin postulated are weak people merely holding back science and humanity. Much like we see atheist's blaming Christians for today while they expound on the virtues of socialsim .

When darwin died, the NY Times wrote in the obituary section the central principle of Mr. Darwin's system is 'natural selection,' a phrase first coined by Herbert Spencer.

"the survival of the fittest,' a choice which results inevitably from 'the struggle for existence.'" The obituary went on giving an outline of Social Darwinism called "eugenics".

I can go on debating the many antagonist's who only know how to debate by drawing religion into the mix then blaming me for doing that or "accusing me" of being a creationist. I am quite certain having been at that game for so many years, that,

1) I will present a clear understanding of this theory

2) you will offer a mixed bag of ridicule, and dead or extinct fossils where is their are some similarities you will insist, it is a transitional fossil. OR you will be brave enough to wander into Genetics in which case I will prove DNA dosn't need evolution but it DID need a designer. You just simply can't have a digital code like that by happenstance and the latest discoveries about DNA have proven, they need to have a major reconstruction of the theory once again as mutation doesn't cut it anymore and natural selection really has nothing to do with it.

3) You will walk away thinking you owned me and in 2-3 years time, everything you would have said to prove your point will be so far from the truth you would be embarrassed.

4) The ignorance we deny is always the other guy's and neither side will know anymore as to how we came to be than they did during Darwins summer vacation on the cruise ship beagle.

Originally posted by masonicon

Originally posted by starwarsisreal
Really I don't believe in creationism and evolution both beliefs seemed wrong

Intelligent design should never be Confused with Creationism

They're the same thing. But just for the heck of it... how are they different? They both say a creator of some sort made everything as is.

Originally posted by chiron613


Darwin's theory is based on the changes of species, period. This theory was based on evidence found in fossil records,

On the contrary, Darwin was disappointed the fossil record was void of any proof he so desperately needed. Stephen Gould also noted this FACT.

in living species in isolated locations, and many other observations. Darwin was a very careful and meticulous observer who backed up all of his ideas with particular examples.

Yeah I love this one, you mean like the new species of mosquito they found underground in london! Yeah, did you know why they can't mate with the other mosquitos? You're not going to believe this but it's true.

They can't mate with the others NOT because they are genetically different, but because they are TRAPPED down there. Any other isolated species is given the same lame hyperbole.

Yes, Darwin did claim that humans descended from apes, which many people at the time found horribly offensive.

Understandibly so, it's never been proven.

However, no subsequent discoveries have been found that refute this idea,

No discoveries have been found to refute the flying spaghetti monster made us either. It isn't what you can refute, it's what you can prove, that counts. Saying things like their has never been a fossil found to disprove evoluton works just the same way to say their has never been a fossil found to disprove God. It's a typical tactic not used by scientist's but atheists do it all the time.

nor has anyone come up with an alternative theory that explains all the facts as well as Darwin's theory.

Darwins theory is about as iron clad as genesis and genesis isn't even a science book.

If either of those things happens, then Darwin's theory will need to be revised or discarded, as may happen with every scientific theory. This is what makes science so powerful - the ability to make corrections as data requires theories to be changed or abandoned.

Where I come from, we call that a cop out.

Darwin, BTW, was religious. In fact, he originally was studying to become a minister in the Church of England. While his observations caused him to abandon the notion that the Bible was accurate history, he remained a Christian.

wrong, darwin died an atheist and is either kicking himself for coming up with that silly theory or is just about dust and bones by no. Either way Good riddance to him. He is over rated

[edit on 15-11-2009 by Kerry_Knight]