THE EVOLUTION MYTH AND THE ‘GOD QUESTION'


In 1831 a young British scientist set aboard the H.M.S Beagle naval frigate on a five-year expedition around the world. He was strongly influenced by the similarities and variations of life, especially on the Galapagos Island. In 1959, he summed up his observations and findings in his book The Origin of Species. The name of this scientist is Charles Darwin and he had just propounded what was to become the most controversial subject of modern science- The Theory of Evolution.

Today, evolution theory has become the Holy Grail of science and anyone who dares question it stands the risk of being excommunicated from the fold of ‘enlightened’ scientists. But what really is evolution? And is it a science or a myth? According to the theory, life emerged on earth by chance as a result of random complex chemical and energy interactions. This ‘first life’ subsequently multiplied and under variable environmental conditions, transformed to all species including man,  To put it frankly, we are here (on earth) by chance and not a product of special creation. This ultimately raises the ‘God’ question and the inevitable clash between science and religion ensues. However in the light of recent findings in paleontology, microbiology, embryology, comparative anatomy, population genetics and biophysics evolution has become a theory in crisis. As a geologist and a scientist, I do not seek to preach religion as an alternative to science, I only wish to separate proven science from invalid hypothesis.

As a rule, for something to be established as a scientific fact, one must to be able to run a repeatable experiment to demonstrate it. There is however no empirical evidence to support evolution. To take a line of fossils and claim that it represents a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that is testable. Why then do evolutionists assert that evolution theory is proven fact? The candid answer is that it excludes the existence of God. They assert that it is not scientifically permissible to consider the possibility of a supreme being. This assertion is closed-minded because it excludes a viable alternative to how life came about on earth. The alternative hypothesis is called Intelligent Design or ID. It states that life in all its manifestations is specially designed and specifically created by a super human intelligent being- God

In its purest form, Darwinism (evolution as originally proposed by Charles Darwin) has become obsolete even among modern evolutionists. Darwin based his theory on the assumption that acquired traits could be transferred from parent to offspring. To put it in layman terms, a body builder who acquired his huge muscles from weight lifting can simply transfer such acquired trait to his offspring. Today we all know this is untrue, Darwin’s ignorance can however be excused because it was some years later that Gregor Mendel established the basic laws of genetics and heredity. Darwin also tried to explain evolution using NATURAL SELECTION. He stated that organisms within a population are in continuous struggle for survival, fiercely competing with each other for food and space. Hence, SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST AND ELIMINATION OF THE UNFIT. For instance, in a pack of wolves an unfit member is unable to fend for itself and thus unlikely to survive. This a mechanism by which nature eliminates weak and diseased genes from a population.  Stephen Jay Gould- a strong proponent of evolution commented that ”the essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase; natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit, Darwinian Theories require that it create the fit as well”. And thus, ‘arrival of the fittest’ instead of survival of the fittest. The truth is that no matter how much nature eliminates the unfit wolves and preserves the fit ones; wolf will remain wolf and will not evolve into another species.

Based on the above stated inadequacies of Darwinism it began to loose popularity. The ideology had however won some faithfuls among respected scientists. To solve the problem of genetic stability (genetic homeostasis), the new concept of MUTATION was introduced. Mutation is the spontaneous or induced random transformation of an organism genetic structure due to damage or relocation of genes. Evolutionist paired mutation with natural selection to give rise to the so-called SYNTHETIC THEORY OF EVOLUTION. By this, evolutionists claim, an organism could acquire exotic more beneficial hereditable traits through genetic mutation. Natural selection then acts to select upon the products of such mutation until it become dominant within the population. With subsequent progressive mutations, a new species appears in a period of a few million years. Evolutionists have finally found the magic wand that could transform blue-green algae into a human being in a couple billion years.

A closer examination of mutation will reveal it is not he kind of mechanism that can cause organisms to ‘evolve’ to a new species. The DNA is a very complex molecule and random effects can only damage it. All the known cases of mutation in human are negative and destructive. These include mongolism, albinism, progeria, cancer, Down syndrome and the over 4500 documented genetic diseases. How then can a good-effect evolution to a higher form of life-result from mutation practically all of which are harmful? The only example of “positive” mutation that evolutionist put forward is sickle cell anemia in Negroes. This is very deadly genetic disease that makes the red blood cells deformed and unable to carry sufficient oxygen. Evolutionists claim that the partial immunity that victims of this disease have to malaria is a positive mutation and thus an example of evolution in humans. Even if we suppose that sickle cell anemia gives total immunity to malaria, would anyone prefer sickle cell anemia in exchange for a lifetime free of malaria? Or that in the ‘evolutionary future’ we should all have sickle cell anemia and forever be free of malaria. This is absurd and can only be described as a gift from the devil. It is like saying being born cripple is an advantage since one would not be able to walk around freely and is thus unlikely to engage in traffic accidents. How ludicrous! In reality, mutation does not in anyway lead to evolution. For instance the bacteria produce the highest number of mutants of all species, yet it has remained more or less the same for over 1 billion years. This lead Pierre Paul Grasse- former president of the French academy of sciences to say “what is the use of their (bacteria) unceasing mutation if they do not (produce evolutionary) change?”

In a futile attempt to generate 'evidence' for evolution, evolutionists have been inducing mutation (using radiation and chemicals) in Drosophillia (fruit flies) for decades. On this Gordon Taylor- an evolution geneticist admittedly said “it is striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit flies for 60 years or more in labs around the world- flies that produce anew generation every 11 days- they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme”. They only succeeded in producing sick and deformed often-sterile flies that often die off. Further attempts to provide evidence from other fields of biology have also proven unsuccessful. Such evidences either slowly fade away or are unceremoniously withdrawn. Some of the failed evidences include embryonic recapitulation theory, vestigial organs and Homology.  Ernest Haekel proposed recapitulation theory, where he claimed that living embryos re-experience the evolutionary process that their psuedo-ancestors underwent. This theory has been confirmed to be totally baseless in science. Organs like appendix, spleen, tonsil, thymus and parathyroid that evolutionists once claimed were useless evolutionary relics (vestigial organs) have now been discovered to constitute part of the lymphatic system that helps the body fight diseases. Also evolutionist earlier claimed that since all quadrupeds (i.e. man, dogs, birds, pigs, lizards, bats, etc) have five digits, it must be controlled by the same set of genes and consequently represents common evolutionary origin. They called it Homology of Pentadactylism. Recent findings in genetics have proven that pentadactylism and other so called homologous organs are in most cases actually governed by completely different set of genes that are in no way related. The phyletic classification of organisms based on the imaginary evolutionary tree has started causing headaches for biologists. For example recent genetic classification based on RNA, genes and proteins have grouped rabbits with primates rather than rodents, and chicken has been shown (using protein sequences) to be closer to Man than to crocodile. Evolutionist once claimed that since man is the peak of the so-called evolutionary tree, it is expected that He should have more DNA per cell that any other organism. It has however been discovered that lower organisms like some toads, frogs and even lung fish have more DNA per cell than Man.

The phenomenon of IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY is another serious problem for evolution theory. Darwin envisaged this and stated, “if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have formed from numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down”. It is unfortunate for Darwin that modern science has actually confirmed his fears- organs of irreducible complexity do really exist. A common example is the human eye, which consists of about 40 different functional parts. Amazingly the eye cannot function if one of the elements is missing or even partly formed. How then could the eye have evolved? Similarly, for a fish to evolve into a tetrapod, it would have to develop complex organs like kidney and lungs progressively. It has however been demonstrated that a partly developed kidney or lung cannot function.

Any direct evidence for evolution would have to come from the field of paleontology (study of fossils). Darwin stated “if my theory is true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely all the species of the same group must assuredly have existed . . . . Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found among fossil remains. After 150 years of digging up fossils we are yet to find a single one of these transitional forms. This is perhaps the greatest impasse of evolution theory and is alone to collapse it. Normally it should be expected that the transitional forms should by far outnumber all known animal species and their remains should be found all around the world. To circumvent the problem of the ‘missing fossils’, evolutionists claim that fossil records are incomplete as a result of hiatuses (gaps).

In 1970 Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Edredge proposed the punctuated equilibrium model to explain the problem of the ‘missing fossils’. The model stated that species do not evolve by gradual successive changes (microevolution), rather they evolve by large sudden changes (macro-mutations) after which they remained stable for a long time (stasis). This kind of evolution was called PHYLETIC EVOLUTION. Unlike in microevolution where a reptile evolved into a bird through a succession of countless micro transformations, in phyletic evolution, the reptile evolved by undergoing a few sudden massive changes (resulting from extreme mutation) and remaining stable over a long time before the next giant leap. As a result intermediate forms are few. Also, unlike in microevolution, phyletic evolution occurs in small isolated populations that are not eventually preserved in fossil records.

The punctuated equilibrium model actually created more serious problems. As stated earlier, even small mutations are extremely dangerous. Imagine a massive mutation, such organism will have no chance for survival. A typical example can be seen in victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The effects are appalling monsters. Another problem for this model is that the small isolated populations required for it to work will result in inbreeding and consequent genetic weakening and easy spread of diseases. It becomes obvious that in an attempt to save evolution from crisis, punctuated equilibrium actually dealt the final blow on it. It exposed and confirmed its greatest weakness - the lack of intermediate forms.

Despite the invalidities of evolution theory, evolutionists still accept it by faith and have taken up the kind of dogmatic stand they often associate with religion. They have even gone to the extent of falsifying evidence to suppose it. Haekel forged and misrepresented fetal drawings to support his embryological recapitulation ‘evidence’ for evolution. Also the famous ‘evidence’ of Industrial Melanism (the peppered moth of story) was discovered to be a forged demonstration. Similarly the fossil of so called “Piltdown Man” (which was labeled as a human ancestor) was discovered to be a fake after being displayed in several museums for 40 years and over 500 doctoral thesis was written on it.


Now we come to the greatest question of all. How did life first originate? The evolutionist tells us that it originated by chemical evolution/ abiogenesis through random chemical processes from a ‘primordial solution’ rich in amino acids (both left & right handed amines). To test the validity of this claim, we shall examine how possible it is for ‘random chemical process’ to originate a single averaged-sized protein consisting of 288 amino acids of 12 different kinds of amino acids. Statistically there is 1 * 10300, possible combinations of which only one will give the desired protein.

1. The random process will have to sort out a total of 1 * 10300 to achieve the only correct sequence
2. It would have to select only left handed amines. Inclusion of a single right handed amino will render the entire structure useless.
3. All the bonds must be peptide bonds. And not any of the other possible bonds.
4. Since the formation of the peptide bond releases H¬20, such reaction cannot take place in a hydrous solution in the first place (Le Chateliers principle)

It is obvious from the above analysis that it is totally impossible for even a single protein to form by a random chemical process, let alone the 600 types of protein found in one of the smallest bacteria (Mycoplasma hominis H39). We have not even talked about the DNA (which is much more complex) or even other cell organelles. Scientists have calculated that the probability of life having emerged by chance is one out of 1040,000. Kandra Wickramasinghe- a professor of applied math and astronomy at Cardiff University commented that “the likelihood of the spontaneous generation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it. . . it is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There is no primeval soup either on this planet or on any other, and if the beginning of life were not random, they must therefore have been a product of purposeful intelligence”. The evolutionists however insist abiogenesis is possible given 100’s of millions of geological years. This is like saying if a monkey tapped long enough on the keyboard of a computer, it could somehow produce a complete standard unabridged dictionary. In his book, the essentials of earth history, William Stokes said, “It (abiogenesis) would not occur in billion of years on billions of planets covered by a blanket of the concentrated watery solution of the necessary amino acids”.

In conclusion, I wish to state that I believe in scientific enquiry and no not propose God-did-it as the answer to every natural question. But I think it is time evolutionist recognized a brick wall when they see one instead of creating myths to circumvent it. It is quite unfortunate that this myth is taught in our schools as fact. Latest research in most fields of science is beginning to point to the existence of an Intelligent Superhuman Being. For example the discovery by astronomers that the universe is not timeless, but has a beginning has raised questions about an originator (God). Some physicists have also used quantum mechanics to theorize the existence of God (Elegance theory). It however remains an obvious fact that science can never prove God. He can only be known through reasoning.

Very interesting article and very well written, thanks for sharing.

While I share the opinion that the theory of evolution has many flaws, I don't think we should dismiss it as a total myth. The theory does have many plausible ideas that are worth exploring I think.

Thanks again for sharing, it is a very well written piece.

Huxley. . . ? ? ? ? ? ?

These people who just down heineken and begin writing under the influence.

Show me where science has ever proven or shown the existence of a Super human being.

God can only be known through reasoning? More crap. What you think and what actually is are two different things.

If you give a monkey a keyboard and ask him to type an abridged dictionary for eternity its possible he'd do it. Eternity is a long time and anything CAN happen.

@ the seeker
This is really interesting; I don't know what I admire most in your post-- the thought development or your articulation.

I completely agree with you about the flaws in the theory of evolution. Real scientists do not deny these flaws, neither do they claim that the theory of evolution, as we have it today, has been proven. But this does not mean that the whole idea of evolution is a myth. Evolution is a reality only that scientists have not yet figured-out exactly how it happened. The major problem, like you pointed out, is that evolution is not a repeatable experiment. We cannot repeat the process in a lab and observe exactly how it happened.

But the people that do most damage to the theory are the anti-God enthusiasts. These are pseudo scientists and people feed up with religion; they use theory of evolution as a weapon against the belief in the existence of God. Hardly did science give birth to evolution did these zealots snatch it and waive it threateningly against the believers as a weapon. If these zealots had waited and at-least understood the basic things about science, they would have realized that science and evolution is not about whether there is a God or not. Science deals strictly with the physical, God is non-physical; thus God is beyond the realm of science. Science can never prove that God exists, neither can science ever prove that God does not exist.

Very harmful are also the religious zealots and fanatics who, starved of all spirituality try to offer the bible or other scriptures as scientific facts. The bible and other scriptures are spiritual books that should not be compared with science books. The bible and religious books should not be taken literarily. Once this is understood then the battle between the religious fanatics and science enthusiasts will cease. Creationism does not oppose evolution; neither does evolution oppose creationism and God. They simply approach the matter from different perspectives.

My perception is that evolution is the physical or biological process through which creatures (including man) were created on earth. Or the rather the physical or biological process through which creatures’ physical bodies were created. Although science is not yet very sure of how exactly evolution happened, but overtime and with serious researches they will someday fathom or decipher how it exactly happened. The theory, the way it is today still is not foolproof.

I think that the major problem that evolutionist have is that they don't realize that evolution was guided and did not just happen by chance. People ask questions like, “Despite all the mutations, why hasn't bacteria evolved into something else?” If one understand that evolution was guided then such questions automatically disappears. Animals (including bacteria), plants and etc on earth today are end products or fruits of a process, not necessarily a stage in a process. Thus the creature dog as we have it today is not just a stage in the journey of evolution but rather an end point or a destination.  With this knowledge one ceases to expect man to evolve in to a different creature in the future. Man is an end product, the fruit of the journey of evolution; the next phase of man’s evolution is maintenance and refinement of man but never a continued evolution towards a different creature or a new creature.

If most scientists understand this, I believe this will greatly help in their understanding of evolution. Some scientists, in the face of discoveries, have arrived at the conclusion that evolution might have been guided.

I believe that evolution was guided by the will of God. The prototypes of the creatures on earth today, already exist in higher planes (Supra-earthly planes). Evolution was guided to achieve physical replicas of these supra-earthly prototypes; and once a replica is achieved, evolution of that creature continues to refine it and maintain it as that creature is, but never a continued evolution into a new creature. I.e., in millions of years to come, dogs will remain dogs; they would not have evolved into a different creature, rather they may be more refined but they will forever (as long as the earth exist) remain dogs. So will man, lion and etc, because these creatures are nothing but physical replicas of creatures that existed in higher planes even before the physical universe came into being.

Jesoul, thanks for the compliments and i really appreciate your insight. I think i somewhat agree with your views (though not completely). The main problem with evolutionists is their desperate attempt to exclude God thereby spinning the theory into an unscientific myth rather than logical science. I really have no problem with mechanisms like natural selection cos it is proven science inside and outside the laboratory and like you said Dog will always remain dog no matter how refined they may get. I do not believe that evolution can create new species in the true sense. The limits that can be achieved by evolution is just permutations within a gene pool and thus variation rather than speciation. Evolutionist have attempted to decieve us by extraploting such variation (for which there is abundant evidence) to speciation.

I insist on calling evolution a myth based on the fact that it claims mindless independent process could possibly have created life in all its manifestations

Tudór:

These people who just down  heineken and begin writing under the influence.

Show me where science has ever proven or shown the existence of a Super human being.

God can only be known through reasoning? More crap. What you think and what actually is are two different things.

If you give a monkey a keyboard and ask him to type an abridged dictionary for eternity its possible he'd do it. Eternity is a long time and anything CAN happen.

the problem i have with you so called atheists is your arrogance. You read my post and this is all you came up with. Where in my post did i claim anywhere that science has or can prove God. You have summed up your mentality by the word you posted "If you give a monkey a keyboard and ask him to type an abridged dictionary for eternity its possible he'd do it. Eternity is a long time and anything CAN happen". You would rather believe in this than intelligent design. Shame on you!

the_seeker:

the problem i have with you so called atheists is your arrogance. You read my post and this is all you came up with.

What'd you want me to come up with. . . .an award for writing long thrash?

Where in my post did i claim anywhere that science has or can prove God.

err. . .here

the_seeker:

. . . . .bla bla bla bla. Latest research in most fields of science is begining to point to the existence of an intelligent superhuman being. For example bla bla bla. . . .

You have summed up your mentality by the word you posted "If you give a monkey a keyboard and ask him to type an abridged dictionary for eternity its possible he'd do it. Eternity is a long time and anything CAN happen". You would rather believe in this than intelligent design. Shame on you!

More noise!!

You have in no way shown in invalidity of this statement all you can do is rant about being ashamed. . .pssft! Shame on yourself.

the_seeker:

Jesoul, thanks for the compliments and i really appreciate your insight. I think i somewhat agree with your views (though not completely). The main problem with evolutionists is their desperate attempt to exclude God thereby spinning the theory into an unscientific myth rather than logical science. I really have no problem with mechanisms like natural selection cos it is proven science inside and outside the laboratory and like you said Dog will always remain dog no matter how refined they may get. I do not believe that evolution can create new species in the true sense. The limits that can be achieved by evolution is just permutations within a gene pool and thus variation rather than speciation. Evolutionist have attempted to decieve us by extraploting such variation (for which there is abundant evidence) to speciation.

  You could not have said that any better, that is absolutely true. And you're right they've tried to draw conclusions on very shaky and flawed premises.

To me personally and as a researcher myself, good science is leaving the door open to all possibilities, seen or unseen, observed or yet-to-be observed, and definitively dimissing the possibility of an intelligent creator is simply foolishness. Anyone with such a subscription is simply allowing his/her anti-religious bias to cloud the issue and are therefore not true scientists in the purest definition of the word.


  I think Justcool's entire response is just brilliant!

justcool:

I completely agree with you about the flaws in the theory of evolution. Real scientists do not deny these flaws, neither do they claim that the theory of evolution, as we have it today, has been proven. But this does not mean that the whole idea of evolution is a myth. Evolution is a reality only that scientists have not yet figured-out exactly how it happened. The major problem, like you pointed out, is that evolution is not a repeatable experiment. We cannot repeat the process in a lab and observe exactly how it happened.

But the people that do most damage to the theory are the anti-God enthusiasts. These are pseudo scientists and people feed up with religion; they use theory of evolution as a weapon against the belief in the existence of God. Hardly did science give birth to evolution did these zealots snatch it and waive it threateningly against the believers as a weapon. If these zealots had waited and at-least understood the basic things about science, they would have realized that science and evolution is not about whether there is a God or not. Science deals strictly with the physical, God is non-physical; thus God is beyond the realm of science. Science can never prove that God exists, neither can science ever prove that God does not exist.

Very harmful are also the religious zealots and fanatics who, starved of all spirituality try to offer the bible or other scriptures as scientific facts. The bible and other scriptures are spiritual books that should not be compared with science books. The bible and religious books should not be taken literarily. Once this is understood then the battle between the religious fanatics and science enthusiasts will cease. Creationism does not oppose evolution; neither does evolution oppose creationism and God. They simply approach the matter from different perspectives.

My perception is that evolution is the physical or biological process through which creatures (including man) were created on earth. Or the rather the physical or biological process through which creatures’ physical bodies were created. Although science is not yet very sure of how exactly evolution happened, but overtime and with serious researches they will someday fathom or decipher how it exactly happened. The theory, the way it is today still is not foolproof.

I think that the major problem that evolutionist have is that they don't realize that evolution was guided and did not just happen by chance. People ask questions like, “Despite all the mutations, why hasn't bacteria evolved into something else?” If one understand that evolution was guided then such questions automatically disappears. Animals (including bacteria), plants and etc on earth today are end products or fruits of a process, not necessarily a stage in a process. Thus the creature dog as we have it today is not just a stage in the journey of evolution but rather an end point or a destination.  With this knowledge one ceases to expect man to evolve in to a different creature in the future. Man is an end product, the fruit of the journey of evolution; the next phase of man’s evolution is maintenance and refinement of man but never a continued evolution towards a different creature or a new creature.

If most scientists understand this, I believe this will greatly help in their understanding of evolution. Some scientists, in the face of discoveries, have arrived at the conclusion that evolution might have been guided.

I believe that evolution was guided by the will of God. The prototypes of the creatures on earth today, already exist in higher planes (Supra-earthly planes). Evolution was guided to achieve physical replicas of these supra-earthly prototypes; and once a replica is achieved, evolution of that creature continues to refine it and maintain it as that creature is, but never a continued evolution into a new creature. I.e., in millions of years to come, dogs will remain dogs; they would not have evolved into a different creature, rather they may be more refined but they will forever (as long as the earth exist) remain dogs. So will man, lion and etc, because these creatures are nothing but physical replicas of creatures that existed in higher planes even before the physical universe came into being.

  Justcool this is fantastic! simply fantastic response! by far the most well reasoned and well written comeback I've read on NL on the subject. I could not agree more and I pray every creationist and evolutionist and those in the middle read the above, ponder and digest. My favorite quote from the above is this:

Creationism does not oppose evolution; neither does evolution oppose creationism and God. They simply approach the matter from different perspectives.

@the Seeker and Justcool - many many kudos, you're brilliant fellas.

JeSoul:

You could not have said that any better, that is absolutely true. And you're right they've tried to draw conclusions on very shaky and flawed premises.

To me personally and as a researcher myself, good science is leaving the door open to all possibilities, seen or unseen, observed or yet-to-be observed, and definitively dimissing the possibility of an intelligent creator is simply foolishness. Anyone with such a subscription is simply allowing his/her anti-religious bias to cloud the issue and are therefore not true scientists in the purest definition of the word.


I think Justcool's entire response is just brilliant!

Justcool this is fantastic! simply fantastic response! by far the most well reasoned and well written comeback I've read on NL on the subject. I could not agree more and I pray every creationist and evolutionist and those in the middle read the above, ponder and digest. My favorite quote from the above is this:
@the Seeker and Justcool - many many kudos, you're brilliant fellas.

@JeSoul
Thanks. I think yours is equally a very valid point.
Remain blessed.

Resurrected! Few posts but incredible quality. I hope many who brandish "science" about would consider many of the points made by JustCool and TheSeeker, brilliant men.

the_seeker:


THE EVOLUTION MYTH AND THE ‘GOD QUESTION'

Which God are you referring to?

the_seeker:

In 1831 a young British scientist set aboard the H.M.S Beagle naval frigate on a five-year expedition around the world. He was strongly influenced by the similarities and variations of life, especially on the Galapagos Island. In 1959, he summed up his observations and findings in his book The Origin of Species. The name of this scientist is Charles Darwin and he had just propounded what was to become the most controversial subject of modern science- The Theory of Evolution.

Today, evolution theory has become the Holy Grail of science and anyone who dares question it stands the risk of being excommunicated from the fold of ‘enlightened’ scientists.

One of the ways science is progresses is by questioning it. That was how we arrived at Einstein's theory giving better results than Newton's. The theory of evolution has been questioned but has withstood those tests. If you have evidence that falsifies it, please present it.

the_seeker:

But what really is evolution? And is it a science or a myth? According to the theory, life emerged on earth by chance as a result of random complex chemical and energy interactions.

No. The theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of life.

the_seeker:

This ‘first life’ subsequently multiplied and under variable environmental conditions, transformed to all species including man,  To put it frankly, we are here (on earth) by chance and not a product of special creation.

Well that is correct but depending on how you wish to use the word "chance". But special creation simply has poor to no evidence supporting it.

the_seeker:

This ultimately raises the ‘God’ question and the inevitable clash between science and religion ensues.

Some religious people do not see your inevitable clash.

the_seeker:

However in the light of recent findings in paleontology, microbiology, embryology, comparative anatomy, population genetics and biophysics evolution has become a theory in crisis. As a geologist and a scientist, I do not seek to preach religion as an alternative to science, I only wish to separate proven science from invalid hypothesis.

Oh please enlighten us on the crisis in the theory of evolution because those fields you mentioned actually support evolution. So please present your evidence from these fields.

the_seeker:

As a rule, for something to be established as a scientific fact, one must to be able to run a repeatable experiment to demonstrate it. There is however no empirical evidence to support evolution.

Oh but there is. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060901_mussels

the_seeker:

To take a line of fossils and claim that it represents a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that is testable. Why then do evolutionists assert that evolution theory is proven fact? The candid answer is that it excludes the existence of God.

No. But when all the facts from the various scientific disciplines are taken into consideration, they account very well for what we observe today. The aim was not to get rid of your God. That is left up to the individual.

the_seeker:

They assert that it is not scientifically permissible to consider the possibility of a supreme being. This assertion is closed-minded because it excludes a viable alternative to how life came about on earth. The alternative hypothesis is called Intelligent Design or ID. It states that life in all its manifestations is specially designed and specifically created by a super human intelligent being- God

How is this assertion close minded? So far religious people have yet to provide observable or testable evidence of their Gods. I assert that you are close-minded because you refuse to consider evidence that is before you. Intelligent Design is misguided at best, dangerous at worst.

the_seeker:

In its purest form, Darwinism (evolution as originally proposed by Charles Darwin) has become obsolete even among modern evolutionists. Darwin based his theory on the assumption that acquired traits could be transferred from parent to offspring. To put it in layman terms, a body builder who acquired his huge muscles from weight lifting can simply transfer such acquired trait to his offspring. Today we all know this is untrue, Darwin’s ignorance can however be excused because it was some years later that Gregor Mendel established the basic laws of genetics and heredity.

So what? We simply know better now. Darwin did not have the tools and knowledge that we have now. This is one of the reasons why his work is considered a great achievement. He formulated the theory using only what he could see and test at that time. So the fact that the theory he formulated has been modified in light of better understanding is a good thing. This is how science progresses and is one of the characteristics distinguishing it from religion.

the_seeker:

Darwin also tried to explain evolution using NATURAL SELECTION. He stated that organisms within a population are in continuous struggle for survival, fiercely competing with each other for food and space. Hence, SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST AND ELIMINATION OF THE UNFIT. For instance, in a pack of wolves an unfit member is unable to fend for itself and thus unlikely to survive. This a mechanism by which nature eliminates weak and diseased genes from a population.  Stephen Jay Gould- a strong proponent of evolution commented that ”the essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase; natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit, Darwinian Theories require that it create the fit as well”. And thus, ‘arrival of the fittest’ instead of survival of the fittest. The truth is that no matter how much nature eliminates the unfit wolves and preserves the fit ones; wolf will remain wolf and will not evolve into another species.

One thing you have misunderstood is the time scale required for evolution. Indeed if an organism is very well adapted to its environment, it may not evolve as we've seen such organisms whose forms are still the same as they have been for millions of years. I wonder, since you claim to be a geologist, if you can give us an estimate of how old you think the earth is, and how long you think humans have been on it.

the_seeker:

Based on the above stated inadequacies of Darwinism it began to loose popularity. The ideology had however won some faithfuls among respected scientists. To solve the problem of genetic stability (genetic homeostasis), the new concept of MUTATION was introduced. Mutation is the spontaneous or induced random transformation of an organism genetic structure due to damage or relocation of genes. Evolutionist paired mutation with natural selection to give rise to the so-called SYNTHETIC THEORY OF EVOLUTION. By this, evolutionists claim, an organism could acquire exotic more beneficial hereditable traits through genetic mutation. Natural selection then acts to select upon the products of such mutation until it become dominant within the population. With subsequent progressive mutations, a new species appears in a period of a few million years. Evolutionists have finally found the magic wand that could transform blue-green algae into a human being in a couple billion years.

A closer examination of mutation will reveal it is not he kind of mechanism that can cause organisms to ‘evolve’ to a new species.

Oh? But no one said it was just mutation. It was combined with natural selection. You said it yourself.

the_seeker:

The DNA is a very complex molecule and random effects can only damage it. All the known cases of mutation in human are negative and destructive. These include mongolism, albinism, progeria, cancer, Down syndrome and the over 4500 documented genetic diseases.

Your claim that random effects can only damage it is wrong. The effect of crossing over seen during sexual reproduction actually is beneficial. So you agree that mutation can be harmful but you don't think it can be beneficial? Have you considered that there are silent mutations i.e mutations that are not observed in a population unless the need arises?

the_seeker:

How then can a good-effect evolution to a higher form of life-result from mutation practically all of which are harmful?

This is a fallacy. We know those ones because they cause observable diseases.

the_seeker:

The only example of “positive” mutation that evolutionist put forward is sickle cell anemia in Negroes. This is very deadly genetic disease that makes the red blood cells deformed and unable to carry sufficient oxygen. Evolutionists claim that the partial immunity that victims of this disease have to malaria is a positive mutation and thus an example of evolution in humans. Even if we suppose that sickle cell anemia gives total immunity to malaria, would anyone prefer sickle cell anemia in exchange for a lifetime free of malaria? Or that in the ‘evolutionary future’ we should all have sickle cell anemia and forever be free of malaria. This is absurd and can only be described as a gift from the devil.

There are other genetic differences that confer benefits above that of the local population when inherited in a heterozygous fashion. Support for this line of thought is seen in guess the animal used most for understanding genetics? ,  the fruit fly. Check the abstract here http://www.springerlink.com/content/v52t84t0r1x57262/

In humans, here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2278105/?tool=pmcentrez
and here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10073943
You have decided to commit the straw-man fallacy. The population advantage is noticed in those who are heterozygous for sickling gene. More evidence will be available with more research in humans.

the_seeker:

It is like saying being born cripple is an advantage since one would not be able to walk around freely and is thus unlikely to engage in traffic accidents. How ludicrous!

Now a straw man analogy. 

the_seeker:

In reality, mutation does not in anyway lead to evolution. For instance the bacteria produce the highest number of mutants of all species, yet it has remained more or less the same for over 1 billion years. This lead Pierre Paul Grasse- former president of the French academy of sciences to say “what is the use of their (bacteria) unceasing mutation if they do not (produce evolutionary) change?”

What? Please do you know what the most successful organisms on earth are? They are the bacteria. They are able to survive in the most disparate conditions on earth.

the_seeker:

In a futile attempt to generate 'evidence' for evolution, evolutionists have been inducing mutation (using radiation and chemicals) in Drosophillia (fruit flies) for decades. On this Gordon Taylor- an evolution geneticist admittedly said “it is striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit flies for 60 years or more in labs around the world- flies that produce anew generation every 11 days- they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme”. They only succeeded in producing sick and deformed often-sterile flies that often die off.

An expert edit. But you failed to mention that they were mostly used for genetic studies not simply to "generate evidence for evolution". Also, if the lab environment suits them perfectly, they will not evolve. The process is called natural selection for a reason.

the_seeker:

Further attempts to provide evidence from other fields of biology have also proven unsuccessful. Such evidences either slowly fade away or are unceremoniously withdrawn. Some of the failed evidences include embryonic recapitulation theory, vestigial organs and Homology.  Ernest Haekel proposed recapitulation theory, where he claimed that living embryos re-experience the evolutionary process that their psuedo-ancestors underwent. This theory has been confirmed to be totally baseless in science.

So a failed hypothesis is discarded. Again that is how science works. It is not simply held on just because it was proposed or written somewhere.

the_seeker:

Organs like appendix, spleen, tonsil, thymus and parathyroid that evolutionists once claimed were useless evolutionary relics (vestigial organs) have now been discovered to constitute part of the lymphatic system that helps the body fight diseases. Also evolutionist earlier claimed that since all quadrupeds (i.e. man, do

Please complete your statement.

About the vestigial organs, opinions were revised in light of new and better information and not held onto dogmatically.
I would advise you to acquaint yourself properly with the theory of evolution before trying to knock it.
Also, please review the evidence supporting it that is currently available before you attempt to refute it.

A word about your Intelligent Designer, why would this designer not design these objects perfectly the first time around? Why not make the organisms fully utilize potentials he also made available in other organisms?

justcool:

@ the seeker
This is really interesting; I don't know what I admire most in your post-- the thought development or your articulation.

I completely agree with you about the flaws in the theory of evolution. Real scientists do not deny these flaws, neither do they claim that the theory of evolution, as we have it today, has been proven.

He did not point out any flaws. Neither have you. What do you mean by the word "proven". Because evolution is now a scientific theory. This means it has passed several tests and made predictions that have been observed.

justcool:

But this does not mean that the whole idea of evolution is a myth. Evolution is a reality only that scientists have not yet figured-out exactly how it happened. The major problem, like you pointed out, is that evolution is not a repeatable experiment. We cannot repeat the process in a lab and observe exactly how it happened.

We cannot repeat what happened on the scale that it did on earth but it has been observed in nature and in the lab.

justcool:

But the people that do most damage to the theory are the anti-God enthusiasts. These are pseudo scientists and people feed up with religion; they use theory of evolution as a weapon against the belief in the existence of God. Hardly did science give birth to evolution did these zealots snatch it and waive it threateningly against the believers as a weapon. If these zealots had waited and at-least understood the basic things about science, they would have realized that science and evolution is not about whether there is a God or not. Science deals strictly with the physical, God is non-physical; thus God is beyond the realm of science. Science can never prove that God exists, neither can science ever prove that God does not exist.

Oh? Threatening believers with what if I may ask? Some parties threatened others with hell, excommunication etc. Why do you feel that these people who feel they have the truth with some evidence for it have to keep quiet in order not to upset religious believers? After you define the God you speak of, you may proceed to present your evidence for his actions because evolution explains what was supposed to be the domain of God. Present your alternative hypothesis.

justcool:

Very harmful are also the religious zealots and fanatics who, starved of all spirituality try to offer the bible or other scriptures as scientific facts. The bible and other scriptures are spiritual books that should not be compared with science books. The bible and religious books should not be taken literarily. Once this is understood then the battle between the religious fanatics and science enthusiasts will cease.

The battle will not cease until people learn not to introduce religion into science.

justcool:

Creationism does not oppose evolution; neither does evolution oppose creationism and God. They simply approach the matter from different perspectives.

No. Creationism does oppose evolution. Just depends on the type of creationist you're referring to i.e level of involvement the creationist wishes to attribute to God. Many religious people do not agree with your view. What do you think should be done? Educate on the available evidence or leave them in their literal translation of their holy books?

justcool:

My perception is that evolution is the physical or biological process through which creatures (including man) were created on earth.

There you go. You assume man was created. This is an assumption that proponents of the theory of evolution do not make.

justcool:

Or the rather the physical or biological process through which creatures’ physical bodies were created. Although science is not yet very sure of how exactly evolution happened, but overtime and with serious researches they will someday fathom or decipher how it exactly happened. The theory, the way it is today still is not foolproof.

It is accepted until anyone can present good evidence to falsify it.

justcool:

I think that the major problem that evolutionist have is that they don't realize that evolution was guided and did not just happen by chance.

This is another claim for which you have no evidence.

justcool:

People ask questions like, “Despite all the mutations, why hasn't bacteria evolved into something else?” If one understand that evolution was guided then such questions automatically disappears.

No. Bacteria do evolve. Those that have not, either fit their niche very well or are extinct.

justcool:

Animals (including bacteria), plants and etc on earth today are end products or fruits of a process, not necessarily a stage in a process. Thus the creature dog as we have it today is not just a stage in the journey of evolution but rather an end point or a destination.  With this knowledge one ceases to expect man to evolve in to a different creature in the future. Man is an end product, the fruit of the journey of evolution; the next phase of man’s evolution is maintenance and refinement of man but never a continued evolution towards a different creature or a new creature.

Another claim for which you have no evidence. How do you know an animal is an end point if it does not go extinct?

justcool:

If most scientists understand this, I believe this will greatly help in their understanding of evolution. Some scientists, in the face of discoveries, have arrived at the conclusion that evolution might have been guided.

Scientists do not accept such claims without good supporting evidence which is clearly lacking. Why should they? The current theory fits and works very well.

justcool:

I believe that evolution was guided by the will of God. The prototypes of the creatures on earth today, already exist in higher planes (Supra-earthly planes). Evolution was guided to achieve physical replicas of these supra-earthly prototypes; and once a replica is achieved, evolution of that creature continues to refine it and maintain it as that creature is, but never a continued evolution into a new creature. I.e., in millions of years to come, dogs will remain dogs; they would not have evolved into a different creature, rather they may be more refined but they will forever (as long as the earth exist) remain dogs. So will man, lion and etc, because these creatures are nothing but physical replicas of creatures that existed in higher planes even before the physical universe came into being.

That is your belief which you're entitled to. Though it may be wrong and open to criticism. You may spice it up whichever way you like but please keep your beliefs without evidence out of science education.

@thehomer
Your post shows gross misunderstanding of my entire post. You have absolutely no idea of what I was talking about.
If you had just pointed out the things that you don't agree with and had asked me to further clarify my points, I would gladly have done so; but rather, you appear as if you just want to ague. I do not wish to be dragged into round-and-round arguments that lack objectivity; neither will I ever allow myself to be dragged into 'believers versus non-believers' battle.
Re-read my post and try to understand it; it might help you to find out the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law. and also find out the meaning of the expression 'end product.' The expression 'end product,' has nothing to do with extinction of a specie.

Thanks

justcool:

@thehomer
Your post shows [size=15pt]gross misunderstanding[/size] of my entire post. You have [size=15pt]absolutely no idea [/size]of what I was talking about.
If you had just pointed out the things that you don't agree with and had asked me to further clarify my points, I would gladly have done so; but rather, [size=16pt]you appear as if you just want to ague. I do not wish to be dragged into round-and-round arguments that lack objectivity[/size]; neither will I ever allow myself to be dragged into 'believers versus non-believers' battle.
[size=15pt]Re-read my post and try to understand it;[/size] it might help you to find out the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law. and also find out the meaning of the expression 'end product.' The expression 'end product,' has nothing to do with extinction of a specie.

Thanks

justcool:

@thehomer
Your post shows gross misunderstanding of my entire post. You have absolutely no idea of what I was talking about.

How did I misunderstand your post? Please feel free to indicate this from my statements.
Well what are you talking about? Flaws in the theory of evolution? Seeking harmony between religion and science? I think i clearly expressed my views on these.

justcool:

If you had just pointed out the things that you don't agree with and had asked me to further clarify my points, I would gladly have done so; but rather, you appear as if you just want to ague.

I didn't simply want to be posing questions but to also express myself on points of yours that I disagreed with, which were quite a lot.
Please feel free to point out my errors.

justcool:

I do not wish to be dragged into round-and-round arguments that lack objectivity; neither will I ever allow myself to be dragged into 'believers versus non-believers' battle.

I'm not waging any battle I'm simply pointing out that from your posts, it seemed as though you had not considered some information currently available on evolution.
Like I said I don't care much about your belief. But in a situation like this where there is pertinent information to be considered, I felt that it ought to be presented with respect to the topic.

justcool:

Re-read my post and try to understand it; it might help you to find out the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law.

I have re-read your post and I do understand the difference between a scientific theory and scientific law. And I'm not sure if you realize this but in science, devising a Theory is actually more valuable than formulating a Law.

justcool:

and also find out the meaning of the expression 'end product.' The expression 'end product,' has nothing to do with extinction of a specie.

Thanks

On earth, a specie either keeps surviving and reproducing or it become extinct.
So could you please clarify what you mean by "end product"? Because to me "end product" implies all currently extant organisms not just humans.

Sorry if my reply seemed harsh I may have been under some stress.
Cheers. 

@thehomer

Before we go deeper please read the following webpage. The webpage contains basic scientific information on evolution.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/


In science a Theory is never proven correct. A theory is open to changes and can be changed as more discoveries are made. Once a theory can be proven correct, proven to mathematical exactitude and cannever be proven wrong, such theory becomes a scientific law. Theories are just educated hypotheses.

The theory of evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive. Evolution deals with change of time, it deals with an entire population and not individual. In reality the theory does not offer the origin of life, neither does it deal with origin. It only deals with evolution(changes over a period of time) of organism. Evolution is simply a process. Creationism deals with the origin of life and not just man's life.

The theory of evolution does not deal with wheather life was created or not; neither does it deal with wheather there is a God or not. It does not disprove the existence of God neither does it disprove that man was created.

It all boils down to what one understand by 'created.' Things are created through a process.

People should stop using what they don't understand as a weapon. Wherever you see one using the theory of evolution to oppose creationism, there you see one who does not understand evolution . And also, those who use creationism and the Genesis story to discredit evolution simply do not understand creationism and the Genesis story.

Thanks

@thehomer

thehomer:


On earth, a specie either keeps surviving and reproducing or it become extinct.
So could you please clarify what you mean by "end product"? Because to me "end product" implies all currently extant organisms not just humans.

By 'end product' I mean the goal of a process. A man building a car goes through the process of designing, collecting materials, planning, building and etc. The end product of this process is the car. Once this end product is achieved, the process of maintaining and refining the car commences; thus the process of building gives way to the process of maintenance.

Creatures on earth today are 'end products'; their evolution continues to refine them but not evolve them into another creature altogether; this has nothing to do with extinction. Billions of years after today, the fishes will always remain fishes, and humans will still remain humans and not have evolved into a different creature. Thus humans are an 'end product' in the journey of evolution and not just a stage in the journey. Stages in the journey of evolution are transitional species which evolve into a different specie over time or get extinct.

This is what I mean:

2. Does evolution proceed toward increasing complexity?   

  In the approximately 3.8 billion years since life originated on Earth, evolution has resulted in many complex organisms and structures. The human brain and stereoscopic eyes are just two examples. At the same time, simpler organisms like algae, bacteria, yeast, and fungi, which arose several billion years ago, not only persist but thrive. The presence of single-celled organisms alongside complex organisms like humans testifies to the fact that evolution within a given lineage does not necessarily advance toward increasing complexity. When more complex organs are advantageous, complex organs have arisen. Single-celled organisms, however, fill many roles, or niches, much better than any multicellular organism could, and so they remain in a relatively stable state of adaptation.
   Learn More
Is Intelligent Life Inevitable? 
   

  3. If fish became amphibians through the process of evolution, then why do fish still exist?   

  Fossil evidence clearly shows that amphibians descended from one group of ancient fishes whose thick, bony fins gradually evolved into limb-like appendages. Other species gave rise to the kinds of fish that inhabit oceans, lakes, and streams around the world today. Fish, like all living creatures, continue to evolve. This evolution is not toward a life on land, but instead toward successful use of the underwater environment. There are countless ecological opportunities under water, which is why fish still exist. When the earliest ancestors of modern amphibians left the water, they found many new opportunities on land. As amphibians and other land creatures diversified, however, fewer and fewer opportunities existed for newcomers.
Learn More

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat03.html#Q01

This fact(exsistence of end products) goes to prove that evolution is a guided process, a process used to achieve an aim and not just a process that goes on by chance.


Thanks

Just saw this thread. I like how you think, Justcool.

However, evolution is a 'theory' only in the sense that Newton's theories of gravity/ inertia or Eistein's theory of special relativity is a theory: It's a fact. A scientific theory is always falsifiable. Scientists todays relentlessly look to overturn the theories and facts of ages before, and there are no doubt many looking to falsify evolution, like they're trying to falsify Einstein's theories. That's one of the glories of science and what makes it so great. No complacence or resting on oars or laurels. If the theory of evolution is ever invaliated, we look forward to new facts that may emerge. For now, it is a FACT, and leading to revolutions and uniting many fields in Science, from biology to psychology to anthropology. There are new academic disciplines like Evolutionary Biology and Evolutionary Psychology.

Why is the process wasteful and cruel though? Why does it appear so incompetent, why the terrible cruelty in nature? There's nothing benign about nature itself, it's dog eat dog. The famous example is the wasp that paralyses a living spider, lays its eggs and they hatch and feed on the flesh on the still living spider. We kill things. Things kill us if they get the chance. I can understand why a mechanical process like natural selection would program a species to look out for number one at whatever cost to others, but why would a Creator do the same? We assume He has better morals than we do, naturally. What do you think happened there?

Mad_Max:


However, evolution is a 'theory' only in the sense that Newton's theories of gravity/ inertia or Eistein's theory of special relativity is a theory: It's a fact. A scientific theory is always falsifiable. Scientists todays relentlessly look to overturn the theories and facts of ages before, and there are no doubt many looking to falsify evolution, like they're trying to falsify Einstein's theories. That's one of the glories of science and what makes it so great. No complacence or resting on oars or laurels. If the theory of evolution is ever invaliated, we look forward to new facts that may emerge. For now, it is a FACT, and leading to revolutions and uniting many fields in Science, from biology to psychology to anthropology. There are new academic disciplines like Evolutionary Biology and Evolutionary Psychology.

I positively assert to you that there is no such thing, nor has there ever been any such thing as a "fact" thay may be later "falsified" - for if it is falsified: then it clearly was never a "fact" - (unless you do not know the meaning of the word "fact." - clearly it was only a presumption.

Why is the process wasteful and cruel though? Why does it appear so incompetent, why the terrible cruelty in nature? There's nothing benign about nature itself, it's dog eat dog. The famous example is the wasp that paralyses a living spider, lays its eggs and they hatch and feed on the flesh on the still living spider. We kill things. Things kill us if they get the chance. I can understand why a mechanical process like natural selection would program a species to look out for number one at whatever cost to others, but why would a Creator do the same? We assume He has better morals than we do, naturally. What do you think happened there?

By what inference do you assume "better morals" to also denote, connote or infer a predilection towards soft or sympathetic notions of individual survival?

Please review the 2 opening posts here -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-411142.0.html

justcool:

@thehomer

Before we go deeper please read the following webpage. The webpage contains basic scientific information on evolution.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/


In science a Theory is never proven correct. A theory is open to changes and can be changed as more discoveries are made. Once a theory can be proven correct, proven to mathematical exactitude and cannever be proven wrong, such theory becomes a scientific law. Theories are just educated hypotheses.

Your statement that I put in bold is not correct. A theory remains a theory, a law remains a law. Both serve different purposes. Theories are not promoted to laws in science.
See here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Scientific_laws

justcool:

The theory of evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive.

This depends on who you're talking to.

justcool:

Evolution deals with change of time, it deals with an entire population and not individual. In reality the theory does not offer the origin of life, neither does it deal with origin. It only deals with evolution(changes over a period of time) of organism. Evolution is simply a process. Creationism deals with the origin of life and not just man's life.

Evolution not dealing with the origin of life does not make it bad or wrong or incomplete. It does what is meant to do well which is explain the origin of the modern lifeforms we see today and of ancient lifeforms we have evidence to show were once present on earth.
Creationism does not deal with the origin of life in the sense that it does not offer any insights into how it came to be or how it can be replicated. In creationism, statements made thousands of years ago are taken to be true and facts are then made to fit it.

justcool:

The theory of evolution does not deal with wheather life was created or not; neither does it deal with wheather there is a God or not. It does not disprove the existence of God neither does it disprove that man was created.

It says nothing about God since it (the theory) does not need God to explain the current observations.

justcool:

It all boils down to what one understand by 'created.' Things are created through a process.

People should stop using what they don't understand as a weapon. Wherever you see one using the theory of evolution to oppose creationism, there you see one who does not understand evolution . And also, those who use creationism and the Genesis story to discredit evolution simply do not understand creationism and the Genesis story.

Thanks

So what are you implying? That they are both correct or both wrong? Or that they deal with different things? Because from the evidence before me, it seems that evolution is more likely to be correct in explaining the diversity of life (which is the purpose of evolution) than creationism does the same.

justcool:

@thehomer
By 'end product' I mean the goal of a process. A man building a car goes through the process of designing, collecting materials, planning, building and etc. The end product of this process is the car. Once this end product is achieved, the process of maintaining and refining the car commences; thus the process of building gives way to the process of maintenance.

The car analogy does not work with evolution because it is a natural process. It is more like a crystal organizing itself in a certain pattern. The final pattern that the crystal assumes is not designed.
If humans were designed like cars, that would call into question the capabilities of the designer.

justcool:

Creatures on earth today are 'end products'; their evolution continues to refine them but not evolve them into another creature altogether; this has nothing to do with extinction. Billions of years after today, the fishes will always remain fishes, and humans will still remain humans and not have evolved into a different creature. Thus humans are an 'end product' in the journey of evolution and not just a stage in the journey. Stages in the journey of evolution are transitional species which evolve into a different specie over time or get extinct.

My point is that you cannot tell whether a specie is transitional or not unless it becomes extinct. A transitional specie does not mean that the specie wanted to evolve or not. It is simply that its descendant diverged into something quite different from itself. The assumption that humans as we are will not evolve into something else simply cannot be known now considering the timescales of evolution and the human ancestry.

justcool:

This is what I mean: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat03.html#Q01

2. Does evolution proceed toward increasing complexity?

In the approximately 3.8 billion years since life originated on Earth, evolution has resulted in many complex organisms and structures. The human brain and stereoscopic eyes are just two examples. At the same time, simpler organisms like algae, bacteria, yeast, and fungi, which arose several billion years ago, not only persist but thrive. The presence of single-celled organisms alongside complex organisms like humans testifies to the fact that evolution within a given lineage does not necessarily advance toward increasing complexity. When more complex organs are advantageous, complex organs have arisen. Single-celled organisms, however, fill many roles, or niches, much better than any multicellular organism could, and so they remain in a relatively stable state of adaptation.

3. If fish became amphibians through the process of evolution, then why do fish still exist?

Fossil evidence clearly shows that amphibians descended from one group of ancient fishes whose thick, bony fins gradually evolved into limb-like appendages. Other species gave rise to the kinds of fish that inhabit oceans, lakes, and streams around the world today. Fish, like all living creatures, continue to evolve. This evolution is not toward a life on land, but instead toward successful use of the underwater environment. There are countless ecological opportunities under water, which is why fish still exist. When the earliest ancestors of modern amphibians left the water, they found many new opportunities on land. As amphibians and other land creatures diversified, however, fewer and fewer opportunities existed for newcomers.

The material you quoted agrees that amphibians evolved from a group of ancient fishes. It's not all fishes that evolved but those that had some advantage in surviving better than other fishes out of water to some extent.

justcool:

This fact(exsistence of end products) goes to prove that evolution is a guided process, a process used to achieve an aim and not just a process that goes on by chance.
Thanks

How does the existence of "end products" prove evolution is guided? Remember that what you assume now to be "end products" can be extinct, or may evolve later. Also, why are the "end products" seen today not seen far up in the fossil records? Why go through so many organisms just to get to the ones we have now?

By a "guided process", are you implying nature or a known religious entity?
What is the aim of evolution?

Deep Sight:

I positively assert to you that there is no such thing, nor has there ever been any such thing as a "fact" thay may be later "falsified" - for if it is falsified: then it clearly was never a "fact" - (unless you do not know the meaning of the word "fact." - clearly it was only a presumption.

By what inference do you assume "better morals" to also denote, connote or infer a predilection towards soft or sympathetic notions of individual survival?Please review the 2 opening posts here - https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-411142.0.html

Lol Deep Sight. English please. I think you know what falsifying a theory in science is. For a theory to be accepted as fact it would have testable
predictions and independent replication of results. Newton's Theory of General Relativity is hunreds of years old and still holds true. Yet scientists still look to falsify it, pushing it, as they do all theories, for weak links and holes. Unlike many religions where people don't want their 'truths' overturned, science works under no such obligation. It's these efforts that sometimes produce unexpected new insights, findings and applications. Einstein tinkered with newtonian theories, and found they held true as long as the objects are not moving at the speed of light. If they are, he predicted different results. Eistein's Theory of Special Relativity was born. It's been tested and found correct.

Newton's Theory is so stunningly accurate, astrophysicists can chart a space flight with incredible accuracy based on it. Hundreds of years later!

When the sub-atomic world was discovered in the twentieth century, pre-existing scientific theories were naturally applied. In the case of sub-atomic motion, Newtonian theories of General Relativity. It was discovered that the Theory, while correct elsewhere, HELD NO WATER IN THE
SUBATOMIC WORLD, AND DID NOT HOLD TRUE THERE.  The discovery led to the mind-boggling, eye-popping, counterintuitive field of Quantum Physics. The sub-atomic world operates by its own laws and its own bizarre rules and impossible things were observed to happen. There
you'd find a particle passing through TWO points in space and time SIMULTANEOUSLY. Richar Feynman said "If you think you understand quantum physics, you don't understand quantum physics."

If there's a pointer, however vague, that atheists shouldn't hold those who believe to be fools, it's in quantum physics. Nothing discovered therein surprises a spiritual person who knows there's more to life than meets the empiricist's laboratory and who, while appreciating
and accomodating his religion to science, does not allow science to dictate those beliefs. Because there are realities beyond the present tools of science to investigate, scientists naturally favour explanations that fall within the tools they DO have. No one can blame them for that. But science is not the beginning and end of all knowledge, and there are things far beyond their tools to investigate for now.

Scientists seek to falsify theories, however established. But I think the question I was asking about evolution is pretty straightforward, unless you want to get bogged down in semantics. Human beings have a moral sense, a sense of justice, a notion of good and evil. We're appalled by acts of cruelty, and there is cruelty in nature, brought about by natural selection. Does the designer of evolution lack a moral sense in letting these things
come about? Afterall we labour under the assumption that He/It is good. Is he good but incompetent, or competent but not benign? And evolution is terribly wasteful. They hazard that fully 99% of life forms that existed in Pre-Cambrian times are now extinct. The seemingly rich diversity of biological
we seem to have now is a mere one per cent of what applied before. Why is evolution cruel and wasteful, and yet 'designed'? Any speculations?

@Mad max
Evolution is cruel and wasteful simply becos it is a myth invented and promoted by those whose minds are to small to comprhend the awsome abilities of an almighty creator. Even the most brilliant scientist would admit that they don't know 99.9999% of what God revealed to us in nature and they are still learning. TOE is so shallow that it is delusional and contrary to common sense and logic.

What's your alternative to evolution then? The Genesis creation myth? Come on now.
Evolution isn't a myth. It's a valid scientific theory. You can't dislike a theory merely because it contradicts unproven, cherished beliefs. As has been pointed out by Justcool, the bible is not a scientific document and has no scientific facts to offer. I understand how you feel but you can't take the parts of science that serve you and ignore the parts that are grounded in evidence, but which you dislike. That God is real has been proven far beyond my satisfaction. That evolution is valid has been proven to my satisfaction. Like much of what's in science, it has nothing to do with the existence of God, though atheists might over-reach themselves and use it to 'prove' God does not exist, when they simply don't know enough to make any such pronouncements. Religions are evolving and science plays a part in that, so the two can't be separated. But Science should limit itself to facts and not extrapolate what they don't know from scanty empirical evidence. Religionists should keep out of science and be grateful for any light it can shed on origins. Atheists should do the same, and keep their beliefs out of science as well.

Mad_Max:

Lol Deep Sight. English please. I think you know what falsifying a theory in science is. For a theory to be accepted as fact it would have testable
predictions and independent replication of results. Newton's Theory of General Relativity is hunreds of years old and still holds true. Yet scientists still look to falsify it, pushing it, as they do all theories, for weak links and holes. Unlike many religions where people don't want their 'truths' overturned, science works under no such obligation. It's these efforts that sometimes produce unexpected new insights, findings and applications. Einstein tinkered with newtonian theories, and found they held true as long as the objects are not moving at the speed of light. If they are, he predicted different results. Eistein's Theory of Special Relativity was born. It's been tested and found correct.

It is nice that you use the word “theory” – because that remains in perfect accord with the conception of that which may be changed with improved knowledge or “falsified.” Perhaps the very fact of room for improvement on such theories is the exact reason that science prefers the term “theory.” When,  however you chose the word “fact,” the stakes are higher, the obligations are adamantine and the functions or elements referred to are solid constants.

Thus 0 + 0 = 0 IS A FACT: and no amount of future scientific discovery can change or “falsify” that.

Newton's Theory is so stunningly accurate, astrophysicists can chart a space flight with incredible accuracy based on it. Hundreds of years later!

Then the elements of it that they use so reliably are probably existent facts which no future science will change: save perhaps manipulate to achieve different results.

When the sub-atomic world was discovered in the twentieth century, pre-existing scientific theories were naturally applied. In the case of sub-atomic motion, Newtonian theories of General Relativity. It was discovered that the Theory, while correct elsewhere, HELD NO WATER IN THE
SUBATOMIC WORLD, AND DID NOT HOLD TRUE THERE.

That only shows that the limitations of the application of the said theory were unknown: thus any person who had previously stated (relying on the theory) that such a theory was applicable everywhere, every time, and to everything – would clearly NOT have been stating a FACT, but a PRESUMPTION.

The discovery led to the mind-boggling, eye-popping, counterintuitive field of Quantum Physics. The sub-atomic world operates by its own laws and its own bizarre rules and impossible things were observed to happen.

Imposibble things are never observed to happen. That would simply mean that such things are actually possible. If an “impossible” thing happens, then it clearly is not “impossible” and obviously has only been presumed to be so.

There you'd find a particle passing through TWO points in space and time SIMULTANEOUSLY.

What is so “impossoble” or illogical about the above?

Are you one of those scientists who imagines that space-time is a “fabric?”

1. If you are: then if your fabric is folded the foregoing is easily achievable through a merger of two points in the said fabric into one point. However I personally do not believe this hocus-pocus as it must lead to severe cosmic imbalances if well considered. Nevertheless, that’s your “science.”

2. If you are not: then you likely subscribe to the infinity and intangibility of both space and time (which is my view): under which again, your query above becomes eminently feasible.

3. What if the particle is only observed seemingly passing two points in space and time as described: but not actually doing such in fact? What are the boundaries of perception? Perception is NOT reality, my  friend, it is only cognitive reality.

Richard Feynman said "If you think you understand quantum physics, you don't understand quantum physics."

It is a matter of time. Everything physical can be understood. Moses did not understand aerodynamics: so it is not a wonder if we do not understand quantum physics – future generations will.

If there's a pointer, however vague, that atheists shouldn't hold those who believe to be fools, it's in quantum physics. Nothing discovered therein surprises a spiritual person who knows there's more to life than meets the empiricist's laboratory and who, while appreciating and accomodating his religion to science, does not allow science to dictate those beliefs. Because there are realities beyond the present tools of science to investigate, scientists naturally favour explanations that fall within the tools they DO have. No one can blame them for that. But science is not the beginning and end of all knowledge, and there are things far beyond their tools to investigate for now.

Very well said. Nevertheless this should not form an excuse for the believer to jettison logic and science in favour of a faith devoid of logic.

Scientists seek to falsify theories, however established. But I think the question I was asking about evolution is pretty straightforward, unless you want to get bogged down in semantics. Human beings have a moral sense, a sense of justice, a notion of good and evil. We're appalled by acts of cruelty, and there is cruelty in nature, brought about by natural selection. Does the designer of evolution lack a moral sense in letting these things come about?

I repeat: from where did you get the apprehension that seeming cruelty in nature equates the absence of a moral sense by a creator? You did not read the link I provided, did you?

How does the existence of a food cycle in nature equate with evil?

Afterall we labour under the assumption that He/It is good. Is he good but incompetent, or competent but not benign?

Does the goodness of a supreme being devolve on protecting weak individuals (thereby making the group weaker and vulnerable) or in rewarding only the strong (thereby making the group stronger, more dynamic and fine-tuned to survival) ? ? ?

If you had a bird’s-eye view, such as a being who stands above time and space must have: WHAT WOULD BE YOUR PERCEPTION OF GOODNESS ? ? ?

Group interest or individual interest?

And evolution is terribly wasteful. They hazard that fully 99% of life forms that existed in Pre-Cambrian times are now extinct. The seemingly rich diversity of biological we seem to have now is a mere one per cent of what applied before. Why is evolution cruel and wasteful, and yet 'designed'? Any speculations?

Something can only be said to be wasteful if it served no purpose. By your analogy, food which you have eaten and is “extinct” is therefore wasteful, since it does not exist anymore. That is clearly mis-footed and misconceived. It served its purpose at some point within a system that still exists: and as such there is no waste. Ditto for the extinct species you mention: they have all contributed to what is the ecology of today. Thus, they were not a waste. Your concept of “waste” is altogether ill conceived and presumptuous.

@Mad max
I am yet to see a single shred of evidence that conclusively supports the evolution myth, instead they either bring forward fossils of extinct animals and make wide and ridiculous assertions that it is a prehistoric ancestor of another animal with any tangible evidence. On the contrary they use examples of adaptation which is observable in our world today and stretch it to mean evolution over longer periods of time again without a single shred of sound evidence and you expect me to believe the bukum? I repeat with all certainity that there is not a single shred of evidence today that supports evolution, animals are still going extinct today and NOT evolving into other species as some shallow scientist would have us believe.

Lol Deep Sight, you seem very fond of semantics and ignore the meaning of the tense to take a word or two at their very literalest meaning, and branch off to unintended directions with that. Quantum physicits themselves called their observations 'impossible',' strange', 'bizarre',etc and by that they meant counterintuitive and nothing our everyday experience of the workings of nature would lead them to expect. They'll soon figure it out. It may just take time. As for the word falsifiable you like to pay so much attention to, lol, its meaning in science to scientists and laypeople alike is quite plain, I think.

The wastage in evolution is a fact of evolutionary science. Don't shoot me, I didn't discover it. It's one of the reasons many scientists don't believe there's a God, since natural selection is a mechanical process and words like 'cruel' mean nothing to that process. However, I believe in God and so natural selction doesn not serve me as an explanation for the cruelty and the waste. Extinction seems to be the norm, not the exception. Human beings haven't been here very long. Everything comes to an end. The sun is middle-aged now. A time will come when it will die, expanding in its death throes and swallowing nearby planets, almost certainly including this one. If you believe in God it should make you think about where we're coming from, what we're doing here, what this planet is for, and what happens far far far in the future when this planet, and humanity, is no more.

You equate food wastage with the extinction of 99% of the planet's species? O-KAY. THUMBS UP.     

Kunle, it's not my intention to persuade anyone about evolution, or argue Evolution Vs the writer of Genesis. I mentioned it's been proven to MY satisfaction. I see it hasn't been proven to yours lol. They'd better try harder!

Evolution takes place in fits and starts over vast expanses of time, and usually as a response to perceived changes in the environment, the climate maybe, or predators. In which case the species don't change into a new species, but evolve defences and organs that would help the species thrive in that new environment. The environment and predators don't bother bacteria much, and you see them the same as they were millions of years ago. These changes take place over vast expanses of time, in response to external change. Which means a species may have undergone several changes over time, and the species far down in time may look nothing like its ancestors. Natural selection adds things to a species, but it also tends to take things away if they aren't used. A species that dwells in darkness may not evolve vision but other means of locating itself, like sonar for some bats and other senses for cavefish.

We Africans evolved excessive melanin and became dark as a response to our environment. So we may survive and thrive in it. And we evolved blood resistance as a defence against external threats in our particular environment like malaria, for the same reason. It's a possible reason why sickle cell aenemia is found only among Africans, and no other race. Natural selection aimed only for the survival of the group at the expense of less oxygen to the cells, likely figuring it's better to have to sickle cells and be alive than normal blood cells while the group is extinguished by malaria.

Evolution having been accepted on this thread I was asking questions about aspects of it I didn't understand.

you go mad_max

Lol. Answer my questions jere. I can't figure the stuff out.

Mad_Max:

Lol Deep Sight, you seem very fond of semantics and ignore the meaning of the tense to take a word or two at their very literalest meaning, and branch off to unintended directions with that. Quantum physicits themselves called their observations 'impossible',' strange', 'bizarre',etc and by that they meant counterintuitive and nothing our everyday experience of the workings of nature would lead them to expect. They'll soon figure it out. It may just take time. As for the word falsifiable you like to pay so much attention to, lol, its meaning in science to scientists and laypeople alike is quite plain, I think.

Fair enough: I do not however like to leave things to lie about in an untidy heap; when persons like yourself deploy certain words carelessly you might not realise that your meaning may be lost on the careful and circumspect observer.

The fact remains that there is no “fact” that ever be falsified. Otherwise it was never a fact. Simple.

Nevertheless I do get your usage and so will not quibble in a pedantic fashion further: let us however be careful what words we deploy to pass across our intended meaning: especially when we consider that our audience does not exist in our own brain: ready to gloss over every mis-passage of our meaning.

The wastage in evolution is a fact of evolutionary science. Don't shoot me, I didn't discover it.

This is a most regrettable and shallow perception. Like I said before it contains a lamentable presumption that anything that no longer exists is therefore a waste. I am surprised that any scientist could arrive at such an ill considered conclusion. The existence of fossil fuels alone and the massive energy needs that they have filled for mankind’s technological advancement is more than sufficient to show that the existence of such things can never be termed a waste – given that their existence has impacted the ecology and provided elements essential for further development; fossil fuels being just one skeeny-weeny example. I could cite thousands.

The sun is middle-aged now. A time will come when it will die, expanding in its death throes and swallowing nearby planets, almost certainly including this one. If you believe in God it should make you think about where we're coming from, what we're doing here, what this planet is for, and what happens far far far in the future when this planet, and humanity, is no more.

In the vastness of the universe it is inconceivable that life exists only on earth. So the heck what if this minute and irrelevant solar system explodes and ceases to exist? There are trillions of worlds out there – nay, possible trillions of universes, even. When I die the magnetic state of my being will by natural laws be attracted to that world where my radiations find natural rhyme. Voila.

You equate food wastage with the extinction of 99% of the planet's species? O-KAY. THUMBS UP.

It must have missed you that consumed food provides energy for the body, just as extinct creatures provide fossil fuels today.

Think again, Max.