The biggest flaw in Evolutionary Theory

Areveli
Much like Pi... or an Event Horizon... or God for that matter... it can only be approached and not fully quantized/measured/located.

EVOLUTION is a similar process. Regardless of what evidence we find to substantiate our hypothesis... without knowing both the very beginning and the very end of a particular series of steps... our observations will ALWAYS be incomplete and open to variety of plausible outcomes.

It is reactive in the sense that enviromental states are required as a prerequisite. And without a "big picture" present... we end up arguing over shadows of what it is we seek to explain; so stop dismissing others ideas because ones ego won't let them see past their own shadow of ignorance.

The difference is we do have observable and tangible empirical evidence that life evolves. Life is forever changing and that is a fact. We also know that species are forever changing, creating new species and going extinct, and that is a fact. We do know that Man shares DNA with just about all living things on this planet, fact. Man's need for oxygen, minerals, food types etc are all caused by interaction with the environment over extremely long period of time.

When we talk about speculations that have zero ability to "quantized/measured/locate" we basically enter the world of faith. The real issue here is evolution does not rule out intelligent design, but Creationism can not exists without intelligent design.

reply to post by FreeMason


I can dispove evolution .

If evolution was true then we would have 3 arms. We need 3 arms. 1 to carry grocreis, 1 to carry kid and 1 to unlock doors. All at the same time!

We need three arms to at work. Two for typeing and one to answer phone.

For Gammers: two extra thumbs and 3 heads. Extra thumb and head for each side of a controller and 3rd head to watch the screen.

Men, 3 arms for.... well whatever men need 3 arms for

But we dont, we are stuck with only 2 arms. so therefor evolution has let us down.

tluna1
reply to post by FreeMason

 

I can dispove evolution .

If evolution was true then we would have 3 arms. We need 3 arms. 1 to carry grocreis, 1 to carry kid and 1 to unlock doors. All at the same time!

We need three arms to at work. Two for typeing and one to answer phone.

For Gammers: two extra thumbs and 3 heads. Extra thumb and head for each side of a controller and 3rd head to watch the screen.

Men, 3 arms for.... well whatever men need 3 arms for

But we dont, we are stuck with only 2 arms. so therefor evolution has let us down.

Give it time, no one ever said evolution was fast.....

reply to post by Xtrozero


unless you're a proponent of punctuated equilibrium. though fast in human terms and fast in geologic scale are still not even remotely the same.

FreeMason

Except there is no such thing as natural selection. The lion isn't competing with the gazelle and vice versa, they are in concert together as part of an intricate biosphere. To suggest that natural selection is the only force of progress in evolution ignores the fact that millions of different branches of gene expression exist all of which are necessary to support the whole tree.

Natural selection works very good for mankind, who in fact does genocide and completely destroy entire families of races, like the Native Americans who are almost completely extinct as far as a pure race goes.

But this doesn't really seem to occur naturally.

So lions and other large predators don't have competition between each other? So certain characteristics in Gazelles don't impact whether the lion catches it or the one with characteristics making it easier to catch/straggle from the herd? So some characteristics don't provide better abilities to survive long enough to reproduce? So habitats don't change? What happens when they do? Natural selection does occur. To what extent it drives evolution is debatable, but it does play a major role.

Sickle Cell Syndrome, is not contained in all humans. It is a mutation. It allows humans in malaria stricken regions of the world survive long enough to reach adulthood and reproduce. Populations from those regions have a significantly higher change of carrying that gene through their lineage. That is natural selection.

There is no such thing as a pure race. If anything Humans have evolved to the point where we start to see a shift. Evolution is still occurring because genetic material is still being shared/mutated; however, we now are adapting the ability to manipulate our habitat and genetics. Genocide really isn't a good example of natural selection for this very reason.

AbleEndangered
reply to post by winofiend

 

Why are you not comparing it to a program?? It has Coding
Stores Immense amounts Data Copies, Replicates, Integrates
Transfers energy Transfers knowledge....

It is a program and its binary in construct, we replicate it as human-ikins because we take what we intrisically know and replicate the invisible nether world plasma/miasma into 3d matter form (we just cant help it because we are its newer better generation). Our problem is that as accelerated tool users, we are in an infant stage as developers and in so being in a state of "DESTRUCTION"- of the planets resourses; our supporting cast SPECIES co-existing, do not have (because we are not intellegent enough) to understand system growth/building, or system destruction/default key not pushed. We have no clue as to what we are doing, impacting whole biological systems that existed long before our sorry asses arrived.

reply to post by tluna1


You can disprove evolution without the extra arms, WE AS HUMANS WOULD BENEFIT just a little bit BY HAVING WINGS.

vethumanbeing
reply to post by tluna1

 

You can disprove evolution without the extra arms, WE AS HUMANS WOULD BENEFIT just a little bit BY HAVING WINGS.

That doesn't disprove anything. We have hands with thumbs that have served us just fine. We are also too heavy to fly with our dense bone structure, so no wings would not benefit humans.

Cypress
vethumanbeing
reply to post by tluna1

VeteranHumanEvolutionist
You can disprove evolution without the extra arms, WE AS HUMANS WOULD BENEFIT just a little bit BY HAVING WINGS.

Cypress
That doesn't disprove anything. We have hands with thumbs that have served us just fine. We are also too heavy to fly with our dense bone structure, so no wings would not benefit humans.

But we do have wings and can fly, all sorts of winged airplanes, body suits and paraglide apparatus. We just had to invent them; granted, not the Icarus/Dedalus feathered type; but at least they fly and dont melt the closer one gets to the sun (wax problem). Cant include hot air balloons too clumsy and ugly, and they just float, dont manuvoer well either.

Some are content in ignorance, but fortunately for you society hasn’t listened to ignorance and has come to realize the benefits of science in exchange for relinquishing its grasp of ancient fairy tails, no matter how comforting they are.

Any reason you have to be a jerk about it? Just curious.

In any case, evolution is a "theory". You also don't know how/why someone may believe in God. Maybe that person has seen more direct evidence of God than of evolutionary theory? In that respect, you're just as ignorant as they...if not more. Worse, you're obviously insecure, attacking someone personally.

How many times has a strongly-held, perfectly sensible theory been shattered in the face of new evidence? Maybe think before you speak?

GEmersonBiggins
In any case, evolution is a "theory".

Creationists just dont seem to get it.
No matter how many times they get told, it just doesnt sink in that the word "theory" is... oh never mind, let me just quote directly from answers in genesis:

we have no need to grasp at straws—arguments using questionable logic and tenuous or no evidence.
Answers in Genesis is not willing to distort evidence or resort to bad logic to defend the Bible.

Arguments that should be avoided
Evolution is just a theory. (“Theory” has a stronger meaning in scientific fields than in general usage;

GEmersonBiggins

In any case, evolution is a "theory".

This always makes me shake my head and come back to this image....



Seriously. Theory in the everyday vernacular and in scientific jargon are two very, different things.

reply to post by GEmersonBiggins

In any case, evolution is a "theory".

Wow, two whole days between cries of "just a theory!"

From the US National Academy of Sciences:

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

And from the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

Do you now understand what "theory" means when used in a scientific context?

Bacteria and Viruses do not evolve and are misused as examples of evolution.

A Bacteria never becomes more than a Bacteria, and a Virus never becomes anything other than another type of Virus. Mutations and adaptations within their own genetic limits is not in any way a form of evolution, it is what they are genetically made to do.

A bacteria can no more evolve into a complex cellular organism with a backbone, than a primate could evolve into a human.

And on that note, Humans share only 93-95% DNA with Chimps, but share 98% DNA with Pigs.

Are we more related to Pigs than to the proposed ancestor of our lineage?



It the first were true we would not have different strains of virus/bacteria they would all be the same so the common cold would be curable would it not? As we would know how to combat this non evolving virus. And another bit of info we have 50% of our DNA in common with a banana but some of us are more like vegetables like than fruits

GEmersonBiggins

In any case, evolution is a "theory". You also don't know how/why someone may believe in God. Maybe that person has seen more direct evidence of God than of evolutionary theory? In that respect, you're just as ignorant as they...if not more. Worse, you're obviously insecure, attacking someone personally.

There is actually quite a bit of neurological work into the area of why humans have created a belief system. There is no evidence of god or creationism, they may have a moment to themselves and interpret it in number of ways that may be spiritual, but that is not evidence.

How many times has a strongly-held, perfectly sensible theory been shattered in the face of new evidence? Maybe think before you speak?

When creationism actually provides evidence that refutes evolution, then it will be in the discussion.

Chrisw0801


Bacteria and Viruses do not evolve and are misused as examples of evolution.

A Bacteria never becomes more than a Bacteria, and a Virus never becomes anything other than another type of Virus. Mutations and adaptations within their own genetic limits is not in any way a form of evolution, it is what they are genetically made to do.

A bacteria can no more evolve into a complex cellular organism with a backbone, than a primate could evolve into a human.

And on that note, Humans share only 93-95% DNA with Chimps, but share 98% DNA with Pigs.

Are we more related to Pigs than to the proposed ancestor of our lineage?



It the first were true we would not have different strains of virus/bacteria they would all be the same so the common cold would be curable would it not? As we would know how to combat this non evolving virus. And another bit of info we have 50% of our DNA in common with a banana but some of us are more like vegetables like than fruits

And a primate never become more than a primate. What's your point? that you don't understand how evolution works on even a basic level? A human IS a primate. Not just a primate but an ape. Refusing to accept this as reality does not make it less so any more than my refusal to believe the sky is blue will make it green. On a side note, you're figures for shared DNA percentages are wrong as well. par for the course sometimes.

Chrisw0801


Bacteria and Viruses do not evolve and are misused as examples of evolution.

A Bacteria never becomes more than a Bacteria, and a Virus never becomes anything other than another type of Virus. Mutations and adaptations within their own genetic limits is not in any way a form of evolution, it is what they are genetically made to do.

Nice how you try to redefine evolution. Well, it's not like that. This is just your uneducated opinion. Also, genetics clearly show that a billion or so years ago a consortium of bacteria and archaea became eukarya.

A bacteria can no more evolve into a complex cellular organism with a backbone, than a primate could evolve into a human.

But genetics and the fossil record clearly show that lineage of primates became humans. The skulls below don't exist if you wish it hard enough? A and N belong to contemporary species, the rest are arranged in chronological order.

And on that note, Humans share only 93-95% DNA with Chimps, but share 98% DNA with Pigs.

Are we more related to Pigs than to the proposed ancestor of our lineage?

Did you invent these numbers or pull them from some joke creationist website? Either way, they're wrong.

Chrisw0801


Bacteria and Viruses do not evolve and are misused as examples of evolution.

A Bacteria never becomes more than a Bacteria, and a Virus never becomes anything other than another type of Virus. Mutations and adaptations within their own genetic limits is not in any way a form of evolution, it is what they are genetically made to do.

This should be referred to as the 'Crocaduck Argument', you think that just because we haven't witnessed creature X shape-shifting into creature Z then obviously the theory of evolution is incorrect.

Adaptation is evolution.....

And on that note, Humans share only 93-95% DNA with Chimps, but share 98% DNA with Pigs. Are we more related to Pigs than to the proposed ancestor of our lineage?

We have a lot in common with most mammals, pigs especially. Is the fact that we share 96% of genes with Chimps the singular defining statistic that proves evolution? No, its evidence that supports it.

It the first were true we would not have different strains of virus/bacteria they would all be the same so the common cold would be curable would it not? As we would know how to combat this non evolving virus. And another bit of info we have 50% of our DNA in common with a banana but some of us are more like vegetables like than fruits

I don't even..........wat?

reply to post by Prezbo369


I messed the post I put up as I took the quote section out and it looked like I was countering my own argument I was trying to say that all things must evolve/adapt to survive be them bacteria or an elephant (which has evolved from a mammoth). The argument against evolution is nonsensical as we as a species have evolved to what we are today in our thought process we may look physically the same but our knowledge base skill sets and abilitys have evolved from those born only 100 years ago. We are ignorant as a race and feel we know it all but compared to even 10 years ago our knowledge has evolved us (more mentally than physically I admit) but then also look at the obesity rate are we not evolving into a species of fatty blobs also

reply to post by Prezbo369


Ps I'm about as far from a creationist as you could get I'm more inclined to believe that we are an ET experiment than a magical man in the sky decided to build our planet (in the dark I might add) then stick a man on it and as an after thought rip out a rib and make women