Is the theory of evolution true?

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by PetriFB, Jul 10, 2006.

  1. PetriFB Registered Senior Member


    One thing that has considerably affected people's conception of the world, during the last 150 years, is evolution which is assumed to have taken place from primitive shapes of lives towards more and more complex structures. Charles Darwin is regarded as the father of this theory and his book "The Origin of Species", which was published in 1859, is his most important work and deals with this matter.

    But what are we to think about this theory and its truthfulness? Is it really true or not? We are going to examine this matter in the coming lines, and to start with also look at the best evidences of the theory, such as the archaeopteryx, the evolution of the horse and other proof. Then we will move on to other sides of this theory. Perhaps, through this examination, you will see the theory of evolution in a different light.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. mountainhare Banned Banned

    Great. More snake oil from a Creationist.
    Let me guess, you have a bridge in Cuba to sell us, as well?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    From the link:

    From the top. I am not going to bother refuting the entire thing, since it is silly. We can show that by looking at some of the very first paragraphs.

    Really...Now what does it really mean:
    Archaeopteryx meaning "ancient feather"

    archaio = ancient + pteryx = variously translated as wing, feather, or more specifically pinion

    Already with the opening sentence, our creationists go wrong. And why?

    Archaeopteryx i.e. the lizard bird, which is regarded as the intermediate form between lizards and birds, has been seen as one of the signs of evolution.

    Intermediate between lizards and birds???

    No, Archaeopteryx shows that birds evolved from DINOSAURS. Are lizards dinosaurs?

    Lizards are reptiles of the order Squamata, which they share with the snakes (Ophidians). (wiki)

    How did the creationist get his facts wrong already in the opening paragraph? Obviously, either he is aiming to deceive people, or he is just missing out on some important parts of education everybody should receive.

    Or he is just plain stupid:

    the term is derived from the Greek words δεινός (deinos meaning "terrible", "fearsome" or "formidable") and σαύρα (saura meaning "lizard" or "reptile").

    Maybe the writer is stupid enough to think dinosaurs are actually lizards. Why not? They often are. Wouldn't we prefer that notion to the one where is he purposely trying to deceive people?

    So now they set up a false question:

    Archaeopteryx has become the intermediate between lizards and birds. And they claim this is false. Duh... Of course it is.

    Of course the creationist does not know how to use google. Or an encyclopedia. Nor a biology textbook. He fails therefore to see that the whole story of origin of birds isn't dependent on one fossil. No. There is a shitload of them and more are found every year.

    Basically we could stop reading that bullshit article now. Well, article, that is maybe a too big word for that piece of shit. But let's continue for the sake of the uneducated:

    Once again the authors seem confused. They switched now from lizards to reptiles. They really seem to have difficulties grasping the concept of basic phylogenetic groups. We have already established that the whole premises is bullshit, but for the sake of being a good sport I picked one. The transition of scales to feathers.

    Birds evolved from dinosaurs. How can that be? How can you suddenly grow feathers from scales.

    Of course, the average creationist wouldn't actually bother to look at what scientists are actually saying, or what the current state of scientific knowledge is.

    I have a suprise for you dumb fucks. Dinosaurs had feathers. Not all of them. But the group from which birds are supposed to evolve from had.

    Didn't see that coming did you? Because you just repeat the same dumb shit over and over again, copying it from another dumb shit, who copied it from another dumb shit, you actually thought you were saying something. No. Just wasting your time and that of your readers.

    Nature 440, 329-332 (16 March 2006)
    A new carnivorous dinosaur from the Late Jurassic Solnhofen archipelago

    That's right. There is already a shitload of papers on this. But you dumb fucks keep copying pasting the same stupid shit.

    Fuck off creationists.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Communist Hamster Cricetulus griseus leninus Valued Senior Member

    +rep to Spurious. Oh, SF doesn't have rep. Never mind then.
  8. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

  9. mountainhare Banned Banned

    One word: Chicken.
  10. PetriFB Registered Senior Member

    Everybody can think that would accident born life, which produces eyes, which can see, and multiple organism of human body, where different body parts can by themself make very complicated things ......

    Everybody who wanna be honest and don't wanna believe adults fairytales understand that evolution is a big lie and adults fairyutales.....

    Only reasonable alternative is that God has planned and created a man ...
  11. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    The very fact that you call it "accident" indicates that you have no idea how evolution and natural selection works. You're as bad as the trolls in the physics forum who want to disprove relativity even though they don't actually know how to work any of the problems in an introductory textbook.

    You are trying to avoid the "fairytale" of evolution by proposing that life is the result of magic. Yeah, we're really making progress here

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  12. PetriFB Registered Senior Member

    Who has planned natural selection, who has planned seeing eyes and hearing ears?

  13. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Clearly, the author of that website doesn't understand evolution - see here:

    "If everything formed from just one single cell it is extremely hard to explain the abundance of species today. In other words, why didn't, for example, a simple cellular mass or moss fill the Earth, instead of what we see nowadays: all kinds of animals in the water, in air, on the land and also underground, and plentiful vegetation? It is difficult to explain this merely on the basis of a "simple" cell in the beginning.

    On the other hand, quite a similar problem is that of complex organs and complicated structures, and whether they were ready to start with. How was it possible to survive with half-finished structures?"
  14. PetriFB Registered Senior Member

    I think that author knows and understand a lot ......but how natural selections can born seeing eyes and hearing ears without intelligence and planning, just by accident?
  15. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned


    Hello mister moron,

    have you noticed that your reference was written by a moron? I pointed it out to you. Instead of apologizing for posting a piece of crap you take it a step further. You post things yourself that are even more moronic.

    Did you know that if someone refutes an article as being crap you should try to provide somekind of counterargument. One that does not consist of posting unrelated crap, but actually adresses the issue at hand.


    someone with a working brain.
  16. PetriFB Registered Senior Member

    The beginning of the universe. Even all scientists believe that the present universe can't be eternal. Hence many theories have been constructed such as the big bang theory and theories about how the galaxies, stars, solar system and Earth were formed.

    Life on Earth can't be eternal as the limited energy reserves of the sun prevent it. It can't have been warming us infinitely, otherwise its energy reserves would have already failed. Without the sun the temperature on Earth would be almost –273 degrees celcius i.e. a state in which everything would be frozen and life couldn't be possible.

    The big bang theory is clearly the most common theory about the beginning of the universe. According to it, from one small point the volume of which was perhaps only the size of the point of a needle, the present universe came into existence: billions of galaxies, hundreds of billions of stars, the warming sun, the Earth and other planets, the mountains, seas and rivers, trees, fish, mankind, mosquitoes, birds, giraffes… A lot of faith is required to believe that all these things came from such a small space.

    The birth of galaxies and stars have been the subject of discussion and the fact that gas would have suddenly started condensing and gathering into large objects is problematic. Many deny this theory. Anything, from which the revolving and rotary movements (which can be observed everywhere in space) were formed are problematic because the big bang couldn't have caused them.

    Detecting the birth of these celestial bodies nowadays is also problematic. If the galaxies and stars were formed during a period of 10 – 20 billion years, according to it, every year an average of 10 new galaxies and 1000 billion new stars should be formed. Why can their birth not be detected?

    In the birth of the solar system the composition of the planets and their composition compared to their moons and the sun are problematic. For example, the small inner planets are solid and composed of heavy elements while there are only light elements such as hydrogen and helium in the sun.

    In addition to this, the atmospheres and movements of the planets and the moons are problematic as they are not uniform.

    The birth of life . As for the question of the birth of life, there is still an abyss between the living and the lifeless material. Life has not been able to be created in laboratories, but only the materials which are connected with it. In fact, a dead body contains just the right materials, but there is no life in it.

    The life birth experiments require an atmosphere free from oxygen, but the Precambrian rocks indicate there having been oxygenated iron minerals in them, in other words, there was free oxygen back then. It would also be strange if there hadn't been oxygen as there was water and water vapour together with hydrogen in those days. The composition of the atmosphere in the beginning should have also been just the opposite compared to the current; for then there was a lack oxygen and instead there was hydrogen, while the current atmosphere is opposite to this.

    Another great problem in the life birth experiments is also that the water surplus would have immediately dispersed combinations back to their structural elements and the formation of proteins couldn't have succeeded.

    The remains of the Cambrian period and other fossils. According to a common view, evolution has gone from a simple beginning to more and more complicated forms. However, for example the remains of the Cambrian period appear in the layers suddenly, plentifully and fully prepared and developed without simpler forms having preceded them.

    Other intermediate fossils – with their half developed wings, hands, feet and senses – are missing too, even though there should be plenty of them in the ground. In the same way, observing similar intermediate fossils is difficult also nowadays.

    Prokaryotes and eukaryotes are two cell types, between which no intermediate forms have been discovered, but there is a steep border between them. The latter of them have a nucleus and are about 1000 times larger than prokaryotes.

    Multicellulars . There is no clear proof of multicellulars having evolved from monocellurars. Their birth is still an enigma.

    The evolution of plants . Plants appear in the layers suddenly and fully developed, and it is difficult to find any preceding simpler evolution phase from the layers.

    Moving from the sea onto land is a problem as how could the fish breathe, eat and reproduce on dry land?

    From small to big . How was it possible for an organism the size of a bacterium or a fly to change into an elephant or other big animal?

    Complicated organs such as breathing, blood circulation, digestive system and reproductive organs are problematic, if they were not ready immediately. Extinction would have been an immediate consequence.

    On the other hand, the fossils found from the earth are not half- but fully developed.

    Mutations . Mutations and natural selection are believed to be the factors that forward evolution.

    The mutation experiments that have been made millions and millions of times for example with the banana fly have indicated that no new species has been formed. The banana fly has not changed for example into a wasp, worm or butterfly, but there are certain barriers that cannot be crossed.

    Natural selection is the second factor to supposedly forward evolution. It can't, however, create anything new but it selects only from that which is old and ready. In addition to this, selection carried out by man i.e. refining, has indicated that there are certain barriers that are impossible to cross.

    Archaeopteryx is used as one of the best proofs of evolution and as the intermediate form between lizards and birds. However, other birds have been found from "millions of years older" layers, and therefore it can't be the progenitor of them or an intermediate form.

    The evolution series of the horse are not from the same overlapping layers, but they were collected even from different continents. Nothing proves that they are in a descending relationship with each other. Remains of the modern horse have been uncovered from older layers than the bones of Eohippus i.e. based on this Eohippus can't be the progenitor of the modern horse.

    The peppered moth and bacteria that have been used as convincing arguments of evolution are, as a matter of fact, the same species all the time. For example, there is a difference only in the number of dark and light modifications of the peppered moth, but the species remains the same – such as there are long and short, black and white people. The bacteria are also not changing into other species, but it is only a question of bacteria with better resisting power and an increase in their populations.

    Rudiments are one of the things which may have been used as important proof of evolution, even though nowadays it has been noted that almost all of them have their own important task. On the other hand, rudiments are not proof of evolution but of regression. Real evolution occurs only if new and useful organs are formed.

    The evolution of an embryo and similar early stages are not necessarily proof of evolution. A surprise would be, rather, if all the organisms had quite different early stages. The seeds of plants can resemble each other a lot, but they still grow into very different plants.

    Similar structures (in feet, hands) proves that animals were made for the same world; it is not necessarily proof of evolution. A bat wouldn't be a bat and a horse a horse if their limbs were different. What kind of a structure should animals have then and what benefit would it be to them if they were very different?

    The similarity of blood has also been used as proof of evolution. However, according to it the whale and the tiger should be close relatives, such as also a man and a rat.

    The Australopithecus which is regarded as a progenitor of man is, based on its skull form and on its size, clearly ape-like. The volume of its brain (400 cm3) is the same as of the modern chimpanzees and gorillas. Many researchers deny its position as a progenitor of man.

    For many decades the Java Man was regarded as the most important find in this area . However, the found parts - a piece of a skull, 3 teeth and a left femur (thighbone) - were located at a distance of 15 metres from each other at best, and the sixth part i.e. a part of a mandible (jawbone) was found from the other side of the island at a distance of about 40 kilometres from the other parts. Also, in the area of the first find relics of 27 different other animals were found.

    In addition to this, Eugene Dubois, who made the finds, himself said many years later that the piece of skull was the skull of a Gibbon. He also stated that bones clearly belonging to modern man were discovered from the same layers.

    The Pildtown man , which for a long time was regarded as the second most important find after the Java Man and about whom over 500 dissertations were written, was a fake.

    The slight evidence . It is said that there are more researchers than fossils and that all the evidence could fit in a coffin and there would still be space left over.

    Modern people in older layers . One remarkable point is that several times remains of modern people have been uncovered from layers older than their fossilised forefathers – i.e. they must have been at least as old as these "old forefathers".

    Lady Guadeloupe and the Calaveras-skull are examples of this. They completely resemble the remains of modern man, but they were found from layers the age of which was "25-28 million years", in other words they should be many times older than their fossilised forefathers.

    The use of language is not proof of evolution, but of regression. Every known primitive tribe has its own grammar and the vocabulary of thousands of words.

    The interpretation value of the red shift has been used to support the old age of the universe. However, it is significant that the retreating value was previously regarded only about a tenth of the current value. This means that the universe would have been ten times younger than the current supposed age.

    The small amount of space dust for instance on the moon and on the Earth proves that they can't be tremendously old. If this nickel-ferrous dust had landed onto the moon and the Earth for about 5 billion years there should be about 50-200 meters (54-218 yards) of it on their surfaces. In fact, on the moon there is only about a few millimetres of it, which proves against long periods.

    Comets. We know that most comets break down into dust during about 10,000 years. On the other hand, the fact that there still is comet movement and that there is no clear proof of the birth of new comets indicate that they cannot be 5 billion years old.

    The Earth' s magnetic field loses half of its strength at intervals of about 1400 years. If the weakening of the magnetic field had continued like this for 50,000 years, then its strength would have previously been like that of a white dwarf star.

    The sun's speed of contraction is, according to some examinations, about 0,1 % per century i.e. almost 38 metres per day. This would have made life on Earth impossible already less than a million years ago.

    The moon drawing away . The moon is calculated to draw away from the Earth about 4,5 centimetres (1.7 inches) every year. According to these calculations the moon should have even been completely attached to the Earth about 1,4 billion years ago.

    The oil pressure in oil wells indicates that their ages are 10,000 years at most.

    The accumulation of sediments into river deltas and the flow of minerals into the sea are some ways to measure time. These observations don't indicate an age of billions of years but readings that are smaller many-fold i.e. from a few hundred years to some millions of years.

    History of mankind . The earliest notes about the history of mankind reach only about 5000 years back in time. In addition to this, archaeological finds indicate that things like using metals, ceramics, buildings, the ability to write and farming have all come into the world simultaneously only some thousands of years ago.

    Increase in population. If there were people already 16,000 years ago, and according to the present population increase, there should be about 1 099 510,000 000 people on the planet now, which is almost 200 times larger than the real figure. According to the same population increase there should have been about 5 million residents 4000 years ago, which seems to be quite a plausible estimate.

    Radioactive measurements are based on assumptions that can't be proved. The best method is carbon-14 dating (organic specimens), but the Earth's magnetic field can distort the figures so that they look older than what they in fact are.

    The results from these methods have varied greatly; the measured contents of stones i.e. the assumed ages, are very different (For example, the age for the Grand Canyon's "young" top most basalt strata was measured to be 270 million years more than the "thousands of millions of years old" stone stratum at the bottom of the canyon.) The contents of stones aren't necessarily in any connection with the real age.

    The Earth's strata. According to the theory of evolution the Earth's strata was formed during millions of years. However, observations indicate them having formed quickly, because…

    - Long tree trunks- and other fossils going through "millions of years old" strata have been uncovered. Certainly these trees are not millions of years old, but ground masses (resulting from the Flood?) have formed around them very quickly, perhaps only in a few days.

    - During St Helen's volcanic eruption in 1980 a series of overlapping strata, the thickness of which was at best almost two hundred metres, formed only in a period of a few weeks. Millions of years were not needed for this, but only a few days.

    - The fact that there is no erosion between the strata indicates that they formed over each other in quite a short time and not during millions of years.

    - Another clear proof of the layers' fast stratification are the fossils in them. They can't form in any other way except by being buried very quickly as otherwise the plants and animals would have putrefied quickly or other animals would have eaten them. The Flood mentioned in the Bible could certainly best explain such a burying as this doesn't occur in normal conditions. Generally, researchers admit that the formation of fossils and strata can be best explained by natural disasters.

    - The finds in the strata indicate that the layers can't be millions of years old. For example, a 4000 year old tree and pollen were found from the very oldest Precambrian stratum. On the other hand, items and skulls belonging to man have been discovered from "300 million year old" coal seams i.e. a time that was long before dinosaurs. Also, human skeletons from cretaceous sediments and footprints from "250 million year old" strata have been uncovered from several different places. If the strata are really this old man must also have lived then, but hardly any scientist believes in such a possibility.

    Also, the remains of a trilobite were discovered under a child's footprint and under a sandal. These animals are believed to have died already long before the dinosaurs.

    The geological chart is another way of finding out age. It is, however, good to notice that from no part of the world has any perfect stratigraphic sequence been found, but only parts of the sequence. For example, only five of the twelve most important strata have been found from the Grand Canyon.

    The strata are also mostly in the incorrect order, many "old" strata being on top of the "younger" ones (the Alps, Pakistan, Grand Canyon), even though they should be the other way around.

    It is also good to notice that this chart was originally compiled in an area which covers only a small part of the Earth and made during a time when people didn't know much about fossils in the ground.

    Periods of millions of years or ecological compartments? The fossils, found from the ground, neither prove the evolution from sea onto land nor the order of evolution (1. trilobites and other organisms many of which lived on silty sea bottoms, 2. fish, 3. amphibians, 4. reptiles , 5. birds and mammals) but, rather, prove of ecological compartments and not of them having lived at different times.

    Even nowadays there are sea-, marsh-, highland-, mountain- and other corresponding zones in which different animals live. It would be rather a surprise if trilobites and other animals at the bottom of the sea had lived on dry land or in the mountains. It would also be a surprise if bears, cows and other mammals had lived on the sea-beds – it certainly wouldn't have worked out. In other words, these animals can have lived simultaneously but only in different zones. Trilobites and other animals at the bottom of the sea would be buried in the lowest layers also nowadays, while the amphibia, reptiles, mammals and birds would be left above them. The places they were discovered in are not proof of evolution or that they had lived at different times on Earth, but only proves of ecological compartments.

    The living fossils indicate that while determining the age of something one can make an error of millions of years .
  17. phlogistician Banned Banned

    All those 'factoids' and not a single reference. Also many assume that rates of change are constant, which is just stupid, but I guess creationists are only capable of linear sums.

    Back up these claims with some links please. Try and avoid links to creationist sites, as they clearly have an agenda, and select anomalies and misinterpretations to build their theories around, not true data.
  18. Hapsburg Hellenistic polytheist Valued Senior Member

    I know. That sucks. TWC does have a rep system, though, and I frequent that place.
  19. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Correct. But that doesn't disprove evolution. In fact, it is incorrect to assume that the modern versions of a creature, even humans, grew in a direct line from their ancestors. Mostly, a new species arises in an area of reproductive isolation, and then moves to other places, where it may interbreed with it's own ancestors. Evolution, then, is not a tree, but a complicated bush.

    The only certain method of proving relationship is DNA or various tests that require recent tissue, so the assumptions of relationship between fossil species are based on studies of bone structure and physical characteristics.
  20. DJ Erock Resident Skeptic Registered Senior Member


    What makes you think that the complexity of our world is an accident? You would say that the chances that our world would come out like it is is billions to one or whatever. But why is it unreasonable to accept that we're the one? Why couldn't this just be an accident? We know of tons of other stars and systems, none of which we have found intelligent life on for sure. So while the odds are against us, we aren't just an accident, simply unlikely.
  21. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    No, you are wrong, he does not understand evolution at all.
  22. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    To say evolution attributes the complexity of the world to an accident is an oversimplification. Actually, what it implies is that novelty feeds on chaos. Otherwise, systems would remain very stable and stagnant.
  23. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa are just hilarious.

Share This Page