It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


10 Ways Darwin got it wrong - The Conspiracy of Evolution

page: 20
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 02:31 AM

Originally posted by templar knight
You've asked some big questions. I can add to this list, when dod we become conscious in evolution? What switched on and why has this not switched on for other animals.

You have hit on one of my favorite questions to contemplate and study. I don't have an answer, but I am convinced it is described in some of the mythology passed on from our ancestors. Perhaps Genesis is describing just this event, perhaps the Biblical 'Creation of the world' is actually 'the initialization of human consciousness'.

I encourage you to look up the works of Joseph Campbell, one of the 20th century's finest thinkers (IMHO).

It is fair to ask these questions and the scientific theory must stand up to this interrogation or change to answer these querioes. But they themselves do not just discount the theory.

I agree. And there are several hypothesis undergoing study. Here is one: Evolution of Consciousness (Eccles)

What I have seen and read of DNA and evolution (Richard Dawkins a respected scientist from Cambridge Unitversity - worth reading his books or visti the web site), it really surprises me that we have so may threads contesting something that has a fair amount of evidence and yet very ittle on the quantum theory which I am convinced was made up after a session in the pub

Quantum Theory is indeed pretty weird when thought about in the mundane world. But that it works cannot be doubted.

Note that your computer that you are using to read this forum would not work it Quantum Theory didn't describe the actual way the world works. The transistor is a fundamental triumph of the nonsensical world of Quantum Theory and very little in the modern world works with out transistors.

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 02:45 AM

Originally posted by Sparky63
I seem to recall several articles in reputable science magazines pointing out many of the problems with Darwin's explanation of evolution and the driving force behind it.

Darwin was indeed a visionary but many of the conclusions he drew have been shown to be wrong or lacking adequate proof.

Darwin's work is 150 years old and he was a pioneer. Did he get everything absolutely right? Of course not. Did he know everything we know today? Of course not. Is his work unerring, universally authoritative, and the answer to every question in biology? Absolutely not.

Today's "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis" has, as the name suggests, synthesized the work of Darwin with many other researchers over the last 150 years, and is as far beyond Darwin as Einstein is beyond Newton.

New Scientist for instance had an article named "Was Darwin Wrong About the Tree of Life?"

The concept of punctuated equilibrium was proposed to explain the explosion of so many different forms of life in a relatively short time span, overcoming the need for great quantities on intermediary transitional forms.

Yes, PE enhances the MES, it does not overturn it.

Regarding the primordial soup, many scientists had decided that it is unlikely to have occurred the way it has been explained in the past. For this reason some have looked to undersea vents, while some have proposed that clays would be a better medium for the formation of the first cells, or cells. Other scientists have proposed that the earth was seeded with all the necessary amino acids from material raining down from space.

Only time will tell whether these theories will someday be tossed out and derided as erroneous.

Time may not provide the ultimate answer, nor are these alternatives likely to be the end of the possibilities either.

The point is that it is not only "Bible Thumpers" that find fault with Darwin's explanations.
To be fair, the vast majority of scientists who disagree with Darwin still believe in evolution, they just disagree with the way it happened.

You perhaps misunderstand the point of scientific study. Every scientist agrees that Darwin's work is extraordinary. No scientist believes that Darwin is the last word. Science builds on the work of earlier science. Darwin undoubtedly misunderstood some things he was looking at, but was remarkably accurate. Darwin didn't know about DNA, yet his work is validated by DNA studies. Darwin didn't know about all the complex ways life is organized that have had to be dealt with in the last 150 years. His work still stands out as absolutely remarkable in the biologic sciences.

[edit on 18/11/2009 by rnaa]

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 02:47 AM
reply to post by IrnBruFiend

Um, dude, Ali G is a character by the comedian actor Sacha Baron Cohen. The same guy that gave us Borat.

You are quoting him in a debate about biology?

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 02:48 AM

Originally posted by Kapyong

No it doesn't.

Yes it does,

Which is why you failed to show any such holes.

Stay tuned,

Evolution is an observed fact.

says you, But if you're talking about a suntan, then yeah, that can be observed. Big Deal.

If you're talking about transmutation, you're mistaken and most likely a product of the public school system that indoctrinated you into believing mutants lucky enough to have another mutant attracted to the other, (as we all know mutants are sexy) who just happen to have the same mutation that just happens to give them advantages, the other normal creatures of their species and their mutant off spring pass on their mutations but they took offense to that word so they decided to call it "modificaton's . Surprisingly other species were also having similar strokes of luck with such ideas as having them arise while a female of that species just happens to have a similar weird mutation and happening in the same places that entire kingdoms of animals had the same exact mutation of enamal coated structures growing in the large facial orifice called the mouth. The enamal coated growths are called teeth and just happen to be located in a place where such a strange mutation would work best and just in time too because by this time, the creature needs a new food source to chew on and GUESS what! Yep, THAT too just happend to be evolving just in time to be the new hunted prey for the aforementioned mutants with teeth.

Mutants seem to have all the luck don't they

The only people who disagree are creationists who don't underdstand it.

Ha ha ha AGAIN we see the unbiased, impartial mindset of the scientific community in action showing just how much they have evolved while they make absolute and uncorroborated presumptuous assertions, then bitch when stereotypes are made about them, while at the same time insist, anyone not agreeing with evolution is because they "don't understand it"


[edit on 18-11-2009 by Kerry_Knight]

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 03:00 AM
reply to post by rnaa

Nope. It's a quote from the Harvard Zoologist, Professor James Hanken. It's all explained very clearly in the post if you need to refer back.

Try reading and understanding posts.

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 03:40 AM

Originally posted by IrnBruFiend
reply to post by Pauligirl

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

Evolution is a theory.

7. guess or conjecture.

Evolution is not a scientific fact.

You have conveniently left off the first seven definitions of the word 'theory' in your dictionary. Is that because they don't suit your purpose?

Here is the complete definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the·o·ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein
Date: 1592

1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : speculation
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject

Here, definitions 1, 3, 5, and 6c apply to the formal language of 'Scientific Theories'. The other definitions apply to to the informal language of everyday life.

These are all simple facts surrounding the theory at the moment.

Thus, evolution could either:

1. Be the correct theory to explain the origins of all life on earth and is currently waiting for scientific confirmation.

2. Could be the incorrect theory to explain the origins of all life on earth.

This is very simple logic before jumping on any bandwagon.

No. The Theory of Evolution does NOT attempt to explain the origins of all life on earth. It attempts to explain how life changes over time.

Please understand this: the Theory explains evolution, NOT Origin. This is very simple logic to understand.

PS. A retired evolutionist. DNA evidence has proven that evolution is impossible. Consequentially, any logical person would eat a slice of humble and then direct their attention towards the evidence unimprisoned by a belief system.

This last part is where most people fail, and this is exactly why anybody in defense of evolution will need to warp their theory or present wishy washy evidence to correspond with Darwin's theory.

Simple steps of logic overseen by too many people.

NO. DNA confirms the Theory of Evolution. You are beating a dead horse with this assertion. It is just absolutely not true, and until you understand this, it is really pointless to have a dialog with you.

Google is your friend, and you should look for articles with information from practicing biologists.

You could start with this article for information from someone who actually works with DNA and its relationship to Evolution: DNA agrees with all the other Science: Darwin was right It is a pop-sci article, so it shouldn't be difficult to grasp the concepts.

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 04:17 AM
reply to post by rnaa

As for the dictionary definitions I picked one from each for digestive purposes.
You could argue I picked one that depicts evolution in a bad light. However:
- The words and their definitions remain the same.
- The theory of evolution remains the same.

I'm going to speak in more general terms.
Believe me I've considered evolution and was a fan of Darwin and Dawkins for a long time. However, you have to be enlightened to the fact there is mainstream science and there is, science.
I'm not trying to shove anything down people's throats, especially on ATS. Everybody is entitled to debate and enquire and that's only really productive if it either confirms what you know or suggests otherwise.

“A man's errors are his portals of discovery.”

James Joyce

“Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school.”

Albert Einstein

If nobody is ever wrong. I can garauntee they will never be learning anything.

And you will never see humans evolve into anything more than humans. Likewise for every single other animal on the planet. It may seem like the ideal competitor to religion, and that's the route a lot of people take (as did I). Unfortunately you will not find any answers pursuing this totally flawed belief.

Maybe after one million years we'll realise we haven't evolved and then collectively start pursuing the truth.

[edit on 18-11-2009 by IrnBruFiend]

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 05:15 AM
reply to post by Kerry_Knight

sorry, i missed what that was meant to be linking me to? it just took me to a previous comment left on this thread.

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 06:02 AM
Can i just give a quick note to my science loving friends - evolution is a theory, ii is a belief. I think a more important thing for us to do would be to explain to these poor deluded zealots WHY science only has THEORY and religion has GOSPEL...

GOSPEL is the revealed word of god, the whole bible is unerringly one hundred percent correct in everything because god wrote it - well, thats what #it# says - in fact i'm sure we could even stur up a debate between the faithful here about weather paul was a usurper or a saint, exactly what translation and cannon we should be using and a dozen other points - this 'perfect' view of the bible is almost impossible to rationalize and has many serious flaws, none the least the god promises all the plagues of the bible upon anyone who alters it's words and yet Islam teaches that jesus was not the son of god and has risen to massive success.

THEORY is the humble acceptance than only by measuring and repeated testing can we ever understand the truth, the acceptance that like Newton and his THEORY of gravity we might be able to explain every angle of the problem and be totally correct in all out predictions allowing us to develop flight and rocketry and using using those calculations visit the moon! Yet as it has been said 'the world might not just be queerer than we suppose, it might be queerer than we CAN suppose' - Another angle, or instance or issue might always exist and like Newtons theory it might be updated, although lets not forget Newton #was# 99.999% right and without him Einstein would have to have started right at the start...

The theory of Evolution is getting updated every day, the most significant was when DNA's role in hereditary traits was first discovered and we began to understand genes - a 'gap' in the textbooks could be filled in with new understanding. Recently i heard a really interesting debate about how squatfeeding turned into standing upright, sure i can admit there are lots of things about man's change from animal into thinker we don't quiet know for sure yet, that step from beast to scientist, we understand much of what happened and are learning more every day... That's the beauty of a theory, working to fill in all the gaps, discovering shocking new things and understanding the world that bit better all the time.

They might update chunks of the theory, certainly we'll have plenty of pages to fill in when we first meet another species or develop the quantum time camera - the mechanism of natural selection that darwin noticed and described however is always going to be a large part of it, it's always going to be called evolution and it's never going to need to call in a doublemagic wizard to iron out it's kinks.

GOSPEL = "truth" = it has a history of being WRONG
THEORY = true description of how things seem to work = it has a history of being 99.999% RIGHT

(oh and feel free to re-read the bits of this thread we repeatedly prove the bible is full of illogical and immoral stuff before shouting about how its THE WAY THE TRUTH THE LIGHT OF GAWWWWDS GLORY. it's hogwash written by either insane or illiterate men.)

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 06:05 AM

Originally posted by IrnBruFiend
reply to post by rnaa

And you will never see humans evolve into anything more than humans.

I interpret your assertion to mean that I will never see a speciation event in human kind. Well, you are right, I wouldn't expect to live long enough to see that, but I hope the conditions arise to permit it.

You see, a vital requirement for such a change to occur is reproductive isolation. That will probably never happen again on this planet for humans (knock wood). But when mankind starts colonizing the solar system, it most certainly will. And when that happens, mankind will split into multiple species.

If you just mean that mankind has stopped evolving, then you are wrong too. However, medicine is removing the natural selection filters for a lot of traits that probably be left alone. This in itself is an evolutionary trend, basically it says that mankind is beginning to take charge of its own evolution. This may not be a good thing.

But anyway, evolution is going on all around you and it is beautiful. Why do you refuse to see the wonders of the world as it is? It is a marvelous place, and the way it works is beautiful to behold.

Here is a newly announced finding about Finches in the Galapagos, the birth place of Darwin's insight: Birth of New Species Witnessed by Scientists. Isn't this exciting? Doesn't it fascinate you and pique your imagination? No? How very sad.

[edit on 18/11/2009 by rnaa]

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 10:18 AM

Originally posted by rnaa

Originally posted by IrnBruFiend
reply to post by rnaa

I interpret your assertion to mean that I will never see a speciation event in human kind. Well, you are right, I wouldn't expect to live long enough to see that, but I hope the conditions arise to permit it.

Please take 5 min. to read this abstract from this very well known journal:

I've posted this before, but it seems that peer review does not sit well in this forum.

- M

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 12:41 PM
reply to post by rnaa

A new species of finches? Do you realize that it's still finches? Do you realize that to make a completely new species of anything is for two separate species of animal to mate? If you get a new species of frog or cat, you are still talking about a frog or a cat. Can you show me where two completely different species of animal mated and created a new species? I believe in evolution as far as inner-species evolution is concerned. I don't believe in external-species evolution. Sure mankind will evolve, but not into another animal. they will still be humans.

There was a massive extinction of dinosaurs yet out of the blue, mammals showed up. Even the cambrian explosion can't be explained. There is not intermediate species between these accounts. That's what Darwin's theroy was all about. We all came from one speck or organism and evolved into everything we see today. That has already been proven false. Instead of Darwin's tree of life showing that things get MORE complex, starting from something simple at the root and exploding into many different things, the tree should be reversed. Life, organisms, animals have gone from more complex to less complex throughout the span of life on earth. It is a reversal of Darwin's theory.

Oh, and props to the OP for choosing the Good News Magazine. I've been a long subscriber of theirs.

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 12:57 PM
"...Can you show me where two completely different species of animal mated and created a new species? I believe in evolution as far as inner-species evolution is concerned. I don't believe in external-species evolution. Sure mankind will evolve, but not into another animal. they will still be humans..."

You should first learn what modern evolutionary theory postulates.
Understanding basic biology also helps.

- M

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 01:52 PM
reply to post by Locoman8

Why yes my good man by all means, watch this video i recorded of it happen.... Oh wait you don't have a thousand odd years to spare? Gosh, well i suppose you #could# come to the museum and look at the EXTENSIVE fossil records, or the EXTENSIVE dna records.... you don't want to do that though do you, just like you don't want to debate any of the other points creationists started debating in this thread then stopped when they got out of there depth...

When you see a tree, a giant oak that's lived for 500years or so - do you question why you don't see any giant new limbs being grown but only little twigs and buds? Evolution is a very gradual process that happens over thousands of years, like glaciation or coastal erosion. I never saw a cliff washed away by the sea, only tiny grains of sand - yet i'm not going to deny that the coastline has changed dramatically in the last few hundred years and entire cliffs have indeed been washed away.

tellingly you say this...

two completely different species of animal mated and created a new species?

of course we can't - that's not how it works at all.... slow genetic drift between isolated community's of preexisting species lead to a situation where the animals are too different to mate with each other - this is they very definition of a species -the inability to breed with other species.

As for that genetic drifting apart of species into two separate species we can actually see in populations such as 'darwins finches' the early, late and final stages of this process happening - science isn't saying that a cow bred with a sheep to create a goat we're saying giant mated with people to create...oh wait thats your story sorry! We're saying that two groups of ape like creatures separated into distinct groups, one began the evolutionary trip towards becoming us the other refined it's tree swinging in the jungles and turned into modern apes - a slow, also unnoticeable process which only becomes clear when seen though a time frame of thousands and hundreds of thousands of years.

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 02:14 PM
reply to post by Locoman8

yet out of the blue

no it's wasn't out of the blue - we're talking about a massive time frame in human terms, sure it was quick in evolutionary terms because of the special circumstances involved - something big happened, most likely a combination of meteor strike, climate change (not the human caused stuff we have today), etc and it became much harder for the dino's to live - actually impossible. Suddenly the entire natural order was thrown out of balance, suddenly warm blooded furry creatures had massive advantages in the survival game, populations boomed - previously out of bounds areas got taken over and at a rate never before seen the mammals evolved into all manor of amazing new creatures while #most# the lizards died out.

Something most people don't understand or even ever think about evolution is that the most important factor in it is that someone else dies or someone else's eggs get eaten - it sounds harsh, well nature is most the time - when the warm fuzzy little things ventured out of there hole's for the first time to find all the dinos dead there would have been a population explosion (and a short pause in evolution), suddenly rather than 'birth' to 'death by eating' ratio being around 50:45 it radically changed to 50:0 - the whole place must have been swamped in fluffy little things, a veritable plague of cuteness.... well that's what it was - a plague because before too long the billions of tons of fluff had devoured all the food sources - this is exactly what we saw happen when rabbits were introduced to Australia, population explosion - ecosystem collapse.

Well unlike Australia there was no one trying to farm the land, no one putting up fences, etc the little beasts just ate everything in sight - the availability of food plummeted, suddenly survival became a deadly game again - this time it was all about unique ways of getting food which gave you an advantage - a note to our old lizard friend the crocodile who having an almost totally unique ability among the eye visible animals to feed on detritus was able to swim though this episode without really noticing any change.

Well as said the groups who favored the more unique feeding patterns were given special survival bonus points, developing these traits further and further developing their specialization more and more until they resembled so little their cousins that even had the wanted or been geographically close enough to mate the genetic code would be so different as to be incompatible and fertilization impossible.

From these few distinct pre-extinction species begins to unfold a beautiful tree, again some of the species split into more species and later they split and split again - this is what scientists refer to as the tree of life (i provided some links to interactive websites with it on before)

hope that helps

Life, organisms, animals have gone from more complex to less complex throughout the span of life on earth.

The fossil record would disagree, all you creationists ignored my post before where i explained the scientific perspective of the creation of life and how sciences we use every day for things as important as for example looking for oil, i.e. geology, tie together to provide a cohesive and interlocked explanation of how everything got where it is today - the fossil record ordered by geology, radioisotope decay, DNA dating, DNA variance analysis and a hundred other sciences we can test and confirm has a clear order, simple life right in the oldest rock then a little later more complex life, then comes even more complex life right up until you have the mind blowingly amazingness that we are.

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 02:17 PM
reply to post by NatureBoy

Only problem with this is that there is a huge gap in fossil records trying to prove your point. As I said, a new species of finches is still considered "finches" and not some other type of bird. Eagles are still eagles weather they are bald eagles or some other type. Even the freak accident known as the "mule" can't mate with it's kind because a horse and donkey mated.

Here's some more on Darwin's theory from the same source the OP presented.


The Evolution vs. Intelligent Design Debate
Jonathan Wells holds a Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology from the University of California at Berkeley and a Ph.D. in religious studies from Yale University. He is the author of many articles and the books Icons of Evolution (2000) and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design (2006), and coauthor of The Design of Life (2007) and How to Be an Intellectually Fulfilled Atheist (or Not) (2008).
A Good News interview with Dr. Jonathan Wells by Mario Seiglie
The Good News: Dr. Wells, you have been following the evolution vs. intelligent design debate for quite some time. What is your opinion on how it's been faring and who is winning?

Jonathan Wells: Before I answer, it's important to clarify the issues. "Evolution" can mean many things—such as change over time, or minor changes within existing species, neither of which any sane person doubts. The problem is Darwinism—the theory that all living things are descended from a common ancestor by unguided processes such as natural selection acting on minor variations. Darwinists often confuse the issue by starting with the noncontroversial meanings of "evolution" and then slipping in their more controversial claims.

According to intelligent design, it is possible to infer from evidence in nature that some features of the world—such as some features of living things—are explained better by an intelligent cause than by unguided natural processes. Intelligent design does not claim that everything is designed, nor does it claim that anything is perfectly designed. Nor does intelligent design tell us the nature of the designer—though many, including me, believe it was the God of the Bible.

Since Darwinism claims that all features of living things can be explained by unguided natural processes, and intelligent design claims that some features are better explained by an intelligent cause, there is an irreconcilable conflict between the two.

Currently, Darwinism is winning on the political, legal and media fronts in the United States. Most universities and public schools teach Darwinism as though it were unquestioned fact, though the truth is that a growing number of scientists are questioning it on evidential grounds.

Data from the genome projects are revealing major inconsistencies in the Darwinian claim that all organisms share a common ancestor, and no one has ever observed the origin of a new species—much less the origin of new organs and body plans—by variation and selection. On the other hand, the evidence for intelligent design is increasing. Sooner or later, the evidence will win.

GN: Some time back, you mentioned that if the "junk DNA" turns out to have viable functions, it would support the case for intelligent design. What does the recent data say on this subject?

JW: According to modern neo-Darwinism, genes that are passed from generation to generation carry a program that directs embryo development, mutations occasionally alter this genetic program to produce new variations, and natural selection then sorts those mutations—the "raw materials of evolution"—to produce new species, organs, and body plans. In the 1950s, molecular biologists discovered that proteins, the microscopic building blocks of bodily structures, are formed according to information encoded in different segments of DNA. They then equated "gene" with "protein-coding sequence" and "mutations" with molecular accidents in such sequences.

By the 1970s, however, it was clear that most of the DNA in human beings and many other animals does not code for proteins. In 1980, Francis Crick [codiscoverer of the structure of DNA] and Leslie Orgel argued in Nature that this noncoding DNA is merely "junk" that has accumulated in the course of evolution. For the next 25 years, many biologists continued to regard noncoding DNA as junk.

In his 2009 book Why Evolution Is True, neo-Darwinist Jerry Coyne compared predictions based on intelligent design with those based on Darwinian evolution. "If organisms were built from scratch by a designer," he argued, they would not have imperfections. "Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution; in fact, it's precisely what we expect from evolution" [p. 81].

According to Coyne, "when a trait is no longer used, or becomes reduced, the genes that make it don't instantly disappear from the genome: evolution stops their action by inactivating them, not snipping them out of the DNA. From this we can make a prediction. We expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or 'dead,' genes: genes that once were useful but are no longer intact or expressed" [pp. 66-67].

In contrast, Coyne said that creation by design predicts that no such genes would exist. "And the evolutionary prediction that we'll find pseudogenes has been fulfilled," he wrote. "Our genome—and that of other species—are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes" [p. 67].

But Coyne was dead wrong. A growing mountain of data from genome-sequencing projects shows that most DNA performs essential functions. The Darwinists' claim that a large percentage of DNA is evolutionary junk is totally false. This reflects badly not only on them, but also on neo-Darwinism itself. By Coyne's logic, the genome-sequencing data refute neo-Darwinism and support intelligent design.

GN: This year is Darwin's bicentennial. What would you say is a good summary today about his writings on evolution?

JW: Why didn't we celebrate Mendel's centennial in the 1920s, or Newton's tricentennial in the 1940s? Both were great scientists.

Darwin is celebrated not because of his scientific contributions, but because his theory has become the creation myth of atheism. Darwin Day in the United States is a project of the Institute for Humanist Studies, which is dedicated to promoting "a nonreligious philosophy." Some atheists have even said they want to establish Darwin Day as a secular alternative to Christmas.

Most people never read The Origin of Species, but if they do they will find that it is a work of theology as much as science. Darwin's main argument was that certain features of living things "are inexplicable on the theory of creation," but make sense only on his theory of unguided descent with modification. Indeed, there are so many discussions of creation in The Origin of Species that U.S. courts might well consider it unconstitutional to use in public schools.

In my opinion, the best way to summarize Darwin's writings on evolution would be as a revival of ancient materialistic philosophy, such as that taught by the Greek Empedocles and the Roman Lucretius, illustrated with examples drawn from 19th-century natural science.

GN: What would you say was Darwin's greatest mistake regarding his theory of evolution?

JW: Darwin was mistaken about a lot of things. He was mistaken about heredity, which he attributed to characteristics—some of them probably acquired during an organism's lifetime—that were blended together from every cell in the body.

He was mistaken about vertebrate embryos, the earliest stages of which he believed showed us our fishlike ancestor in its adult state.

He was mistaken about the geographic distribution of species, which he thought could be explained entirely by migration or by geological separation.

He was mistaken in claiming that all organisms were part of one great "tree of life" with a common ancestor at the root.

And he was mistaken about the power of natural selection, which he argued—by analogy with artificial selection, which had never produced anything more than changes within existing species—produced new species, organs and body plans.

But Darwin's greatest mistake was to deny design in living things. The unguided processes he invoked have never been able to produce the major innovations needed for evolution. And the more we learn about living things, the more designed they look.

GN: Some scientists claim the chimpanzee genome is about 99 percent similar to the human genome, but others claim it is closer to 75 percent. What is the truth about this, and how significant are the findings?

JW: Comparing chimpanzee and human genomes is tricky, not the least because the sequences do not line up exactly and one has to decide where to start the comparison. The 99 percent figure involves only a part of each genome; and depending on the technique and the researcher, the estimates can vary significantly.

But whatever the estimate, the deeper question is, what does it mean? According to evolutionist Jonathan Marks, who published a book in 2002 titled What It Means to Be 98% Chimpanzee, it means very little. Marks argues that since there are only four [molecular compound] subunits in DNA, any two living things are bound to be at least 25 percent similar. Someone who claims that humans are 99 percent similar to chimps might as well add that humans are 35 percent similar to daffodils.

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 02:19 PM
In fact, the similarity between chimp and human DNA—whatever the figure may be—poses a problem for neo-Darwinism. According to neo-Darwinism, organisms are what they are because of their DNA—which is why DNA mutations can supposedly provide the raw materials for evolution. Then why are chimps and humans so different from each other not only in their anatomy and physiology but also in their intelligence and behavior? Basing an estimate of their similarity on DNA comparisons alone is a byproduct of neo-Darwinian dogma, not biological science.

There is actually abundant evidence that embryo development is not entirely controlled by DNA. More information is necessary, and this information is located in cellular structures that the embryo inherits apart from its DNA. But neo-Darwinian dogma tends to blind people to this evidence and thereby hinders scientific progress.

GN: You are a prolific writer about intelligent design. What are you currently working on in this regard?

JW: In the past year I have written two book reviews: "Darwin of the Gaps," a review of Francis Collins' The Language of God and "Why Darwinism Is False," a review of Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True.

Mostly, however, I have been doing empirical and theoretical research in my own field, cell and developmental biology. The empirical research involves testing an intelligent design-guided hypothesis about a possible cause of cancer, which I published in 2005. The theoretical research involves formulating testable hypotheses about the nature and location of non-DNA information in the embryo, by analyzing the embryo as though it were a designed whole instead of an accidental byproduct of DNA mutations and natural selection.

GN: You mentioned some while ago that by the year 2025, the theory of evolution would have lost most of its appeal. Do you still think this date is feasible for that?

JW: Yes, I do. Of course, it's risky to put a date on such a prediction, but scientific discoveries are rapidly making Darwinism less and less plausible, and this is becoming more and more obvious to new students and to others not already committed to the old way of thinking.

I compare Darwinism to a frozen pond in the springtime. As winter passes and the days grow longer, the ice may look thick, but it becomes honeycombed with melt water. In the next thaw it may disappear overnight. GN


This is a scientist who use to be christian, then athiest, then agnostic, back to christianity after so many flaws found in the "theory" of evolution.

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 02:50 PM
reply to post by Locoman8

As I said, a new species of finches is still considered "finches" and not some other type of bird.

The point is, they are a different species, unable to cross-reproduce and "synchronise" with the ancestor, so its only a matter of time before they start to look different.. After reproductive isolation, its inevitable..

In contrast, Coyne said that creation by design predicts that no such genes would exist. "And the evolutionary prediction that we'll find pseudogenes has been fulfilled," he wrote. "Our genome—and that of other species—are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes" [p. 67]. But Coyne was dead wrong. A growing mountain of data from genome-sequencing projects shows that most DNA performs essential functions.

What about the broken vitamin C enzyme? Why would creator put it into the genome? To deceive us? What about other "broken genes"?

[edit on 18-11-2009 by Maslo]

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 02:53 PM
reply to post by Locoman8

a television screen only shows twenty five pixels a second, there are HUGE gaps when a motor car drives across the screen, does that mean the theory that the motor car drove across the screen is wrong?

What i'm saying is that we can't have ALL the fossil's of all our relative - that would be over 800 million glass cabinets and it wouldn't even be the whole story, far from it. Fossils only form in certain kinds of rock, certain conditions and out of certain bits of animals - the majority of our forefathers got devoured some time after having children that's absolutely certain.

The many fossils we have managed to discover, those that by chance managed to get laid down and survive the many years of existence without getting turned into metamorphic rock and THEN been in one of the very few places someone looking for fossils has looked...

These fossils, actually amazing numerous, provide a detailed record of what lived where and when - Darwins famous 'Tree of Life' can be shown with fossils as here, -Slow changes develop over time between similar species and then they spit off slowing forming entirely distinct groups - apes become people, although really people #are# simians really, and we #are# small tree hugging things and weird hole digging things, etc, etc.

By far the overwhelming signs, that is to say the as expected ordering of not just the fossil record within geological and radioisotope order but also the genetic evidence points to a converging tree of species.

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 03:05 PM

Posted because I know it will make some people think, and other people rage.

Continue spouting your misconceptions, misinterpretations, and deny with every shred of conviction in your non-existent soul any temptation to honestly and openly understand the subject. The veracity and utility of Evolution in biology and engineering (via EAs) will ensure it's place in academia to the limits that evidence allows. It will continue to promote new discovery and developments of technology.

And you... you can just keep lying to yourselves. Never understanding why you can't convince others despite how thoroughly you've convinced yourself.

Just don't say that nobody ever told you.

top topics

<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in