Darwin's Theory is False

[Woody]

This post has been edited because Darwin's theory is not flawed, but the explanation of it is flawed by some that agree with it and profess to understand it. Since this is an emotional subject for most people, there are barriers to it's communication. Hence, it becomes a personal issue, and objectivity is lost as a result.

The challenge to the evolution community is to have a unified approach to the delivery of this subject that is more accepting to all levels and backgrounds of humanity, understanding diversity, without condescending on people that have a different point of view.

The challenge to the faith community is similar. First of all most of evolution theory is not a threat to faith. Also, faith should not be construed as a threat to evolution theory. Religion is a personal choice. Science is truth that the creator made, and hence, the creator is in ultimate control of how nature operates. This is not in variance with religions. The bible, for example, does not specify how God created the plant and animal kingdoms, and evolution theory does not explain how life originated, nor why everyhting ages and dies. Perhaps the sciences will eventually answer these questions, but it should not change a person's faith.

[spidergoat]

Theories about evolution have long surpassed the ideas of Darwin. Perhaps you would like to point out the illogic? There are many causes of evolution: mutation, genetic drift, selection pressures, the local environment and such. In a sense, life IS eternal. It started several billion years ago, and nothing has killed it yet.

[guthrie]

Logic? What has logic got to do with evidence?

OK, your 2nd link is bunk from the start:
"The answer is much too simple and also much too revealing: the fittest are those who survive (Period). Why are they the fittest? Because they survived. But why did they survive? Because they are the fittest. That's all we know about them. The same answer applies to the more obscure phrase, (survival or "preservation") by "natural selection": the types that have been selected by nature are those who have survived. Both arguments are tautological. Nothing is learned about the real scientific cause of evolution or the origin of species by learning that the population consists of survivors."

Whoever wrote this has ignored 150 years of experiment and science, looking at genetics and mutations, let alone probably not even properly read "origin of species" to begin with.

From the wiki entry:
"The phrase is a metaphor, not a scientific description; and it is not generally used by biologists, who almost exclusively use natural selection in preference"

So who exactly are you arguing with? Your concerns dont have anything to do with evolutionary biology.

And what cause do you want? Are you looking for evidence for a deity?

[c7ityi_]

I hope everyone that believes it is prepared for their eternity.

omg, i go to hell if i believe in the theory of evolution. i'm so scared.

In a sense, life IS eternal. It started several billion years ago, and nothing has killed it yet.

everything that has a beginning, must have an end. but life didn't have a beginning.

[spuriousmonkey]

The "cause" of evolution has not really been proven.

yes, it has.

[c7ityi_]

They say that mutations or genetic drift are the "cause" of evolution, but if so... what causes them, and so on. People can't grasp what a cause is, it's so annoying...

[spuriousmonkey]

Mutations are caused by copying errors and environmental influences such as radiation.

You don't have to go deeper.

Evolution is not caused by mutations. The process of natural and sexual selection in combination with drift has shaped evolution, is shaping evolution, and will shape evolution.

[wesmorris]

The god meme is strong in this one.

[spidergoat]

What causes genetic drift and mutation? Errors. The process of transcripting DNA code leaves so much room for error, it is a wonder it works at all, but fortunately, it is these mistakes that make change possible.

[Michael]

You'll probably say I don't understand Darwin's theory of evolution

1) you haven't actually written anything about any stated theory nor pointed out what is falsifiable about it.

So yes, as it stands, I would say you don’t have any idea of what you’re talking about.

2) why don’t you tell us what exactly you have falsified and then as scientists we can update the theory.

You see, unlike fairy tales carved in stone, science is constantly changing. As soon as any part of it is falsified it is changed. it’s really that simple.

So Woody, why don’t you write down for the whole world to read - exactly what hypothesis you are testing and exactly how you found that the null was or was not rejected.

Thanks,
Michael

[Ophiolite]

Darwin's theory of evolution is logically flawed. I'm not the first to bring it up.

And this is hardly the first time you have brought it up. Indeed you have brought it up more times than a poorly cooked prawn curry. Do you somehow feel that repeating 'I am an idiot. I am an idiot.' many times will make us believe you? Wait a moment.....it seems to be working. Yes, I think perhaps you are an idiot.

I hope everyone that believes it is prepared for their eternity.

Listen you offensive little git, you are a sorry excuse for a Christian. It appears very clear to me you have as much right to call yourself a Christian as I have to declare myself as the reincarnation of the first kangaroo seen by Captain Cook. Your self righteous discredited non mainstream perception of Christianity is so warped, distorted and lacking in any foundation that it is an affront to any decent believer. You should be ashamed of yourself for playing the devils cards for him. I doubt you are truly evil, but you practice evil. Stop it, or at least stop it on this forum.
In short you are a sanctomonious prick who would do well to look to their own eternity.

[spidergoat]

While secretly developing his theory of natural selection, Darwin even wrote of religion as a tribal survival strategy, though he still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver. His belief continued to dwindle over the time, and with the death of his daughter Annie in 1851, Darwin finally lost all faith in Christianity. He continued to give support to the local church and help with parish work, but on Sundays would go for a walk while his family attended church. In later life, when asked about his religious views, he wrote that he had never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."
(wiki)

Woody, you are correct to fear the wisdom of Darwin. If evolution explains the existence of species, what questions are left for which God is the answer?

[c7ityi_]

spidergoat,

Genetic drift and mutations are "errors"?
What causes the errors?
Why call them errors?
Because of ignorance, huh?

[spidergoat]

Yes, they are errors in copying the DNA code. Fortunately, these "errors" work in our favor in the end. You shouldn't read anything into the term error other than a difference between the original code and the duplicated code. Many things can interfere with this duplication, mutagens, radiation, asbestos...

[c7ityi_]

I know what causes evolution! It's me. God. It is I who cause all those "errors" in DNA.

[spuriousmonkey]

Why call them errors?

They are called errors when they are not the same as the template (or technically the exact opposite of the template) during copying.

These errors are not directed and hence it is rather silly to suppose that a deity directs them. Unless God does play dice.

Natural and sexual selection cause the direction of genetic acummulation of errors/mutations.

You could of course have read all this in any basic biology book.

Might I point out the logical error in the creationist view? None of the data sets supports the idea of creation.

[AmishRakeFight]

I was always taught that there was two types of evolution; microevolution and macroevolution. Maybe it's outdated, I don't know. Microevolution is when there are minor changes or adaptations in species. Macroevolution= there are major changes in things over time. Microevolution is the ability to adapt to the environment, which we all know happens every day in life. Things have to adapt to their environment and the things around it to have the best chance of survival. Macroevolution is essentially the theory Charles Darwin described in Origin of the Species. Honestly, I have no idea what is true. I've recently become an agnostic, and I don't stand behind this theory of microevolution and macroevolution.<p><p>AmishRakeFight

[spuriousmonkey]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

[Lemming3k]

I hope everyone that believes it is prepared for their eternity

Eternity? No not really, i plan on dying someday, but assuming you mean hell, then if it exists, i'll be sure to look you up while im there just so you can say you told me so.

You'll probably say I don't understand Darwin's theory of evolution

Well if you're smart enough to realise we'll say this, why arnt you smart enough to realise its true? For such a simple theory, im amazed it causes such problems for some.

So have a happy hereafter

I always do.

[charles cure]

Darwin's theory of evolution is logically flawed. I'm not the first to bring it up. I hope everyone that believes it is prepared for their eternity. The "cause" of evolution has not really been proven.

http://www.tdtone.org/darwin/Darwin1.htm

http://www.tdtone.org/evolution/TDTns.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest


The author of the first two technical papers is waiting for someone to provide a satisfactory definition of "natural selection." He has been waiting years for someone to accomplish this.

You'll probably say I don't understand Darwin's theory of evolution (just because I do not agree with you about it). In my opinion it's just a matter of "your faith" in Darwinism.

So have a happy hereafter.

Herbert Spencer, an early contributor to the British magazine The Economist is credited with the invention of the phrase "survival of the fittest". he used the phrase to describe how companies thrived and failed in a market economy. After Darwin published The Origin Of Species, Spencer saw parallels with the ideas of natural selection and applied the phrase to evolution. it caught on.