Evolution continued...
This is a good topic, so I'll toss a few more coals on the fire.
Evolution claims that life becomes more diverse as time progresses. (This is one point at which it violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.) It claims that live began as single celled organisms which then evolved over time to encompass the multitude of life forms that exist on earth today.
Here are a couple of problems with that.
There are too many examples of symbiotic relationships. Two (or more) species which supposedly developed along different evolutionary lines and at different time frames and which cannot survive long without the other. What of the obligate symbionts? How does evolution explain this?
More importantly, if nature is becoming more diverse (as evolution claims), why is it that we observe exactly the opposite? Are there more species now than 200 years ago or less? There are less. Has there been any scientifically observed example of a new species that didn't exist 200 years ago? None. This is an example of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics at work. Order tends to disorder. Decay with time. Evolution asks us to believe exactly the opposite.
There are actually two kinds of evolution. Macroevolution (extraspecies changes - the notion that higher life forms evolve from lower), and microevolution (intraspecies changes - the notion that certain traits will develop within a species through breeding.) Microevolution that is uncontrolled will diminish diversity, whereas macroevolution claims to increase diversity. Microevolution is scientifically observable and provable.
Macroevolution is not. Science is based on observation. No person has ever witnessed macroevolution. It is a theory. A theory in the realm of science is not something to be proven or disproven; rather in this context the word "theory" refers to a framework or paradigm designed to explain the current state of things. In this way, the theory of evolution is equivalent to the theory of creation. It is a framework on which people base assumptions. Neither macroevolution nor creation has been or can be witnessed by scientists, so neither one can be scientifically quantifiable.
I repeat: macroevolution has NEVER been witnessed by mankind. There is no evidence to support it. Likewise, there is no evidence to support the theory of creation. Each must be taken by faith.
For whatever reason, science has become a panacea in western culture. To the average American layperson, science is studied in middle school and then never again. Scientists are seen as brilliant people who can do just about anything. They are taken at their word. When a scientist claims that pollution is causing global warming, politicians and the press believe it. When a scientist states that a certain star is 26 million light years away from earth, people believe him. Most people do not know how he reached this conclusion, nor do they even question his methods, because they assume that the scientist knows what he is doing. After all, he is a "scientist." Do you know the intimate details of how carbon-14 dating works? But do you take it for granted when an article in a magazine tells you that a certain dinosaur bone is x millions of years old that this must be true? People often trust scientists blindly - in essense, people "put their faith" in scientists.
I didn't go to college to become a scientist. I'm an engineer and a mathematician. But any engineering degree requires so much science that you get a really good feel for it. If you've gone though many of these classes, you'll be familiar with the term "WAG" - "wild ass guess." I sat through lots of classes with lots of people who are now "scientists," and I can tell you this: when something doesn't make sense despite rerunning the experiment over and over again, a WAG is born. When the numbers don't add up just right, the assumptions are tweaked a bit. When a phenomenon is unexplainable but some basis is needed for other ideas to stand on, a theory is born.
Is this bad? Not necessarily. Theories are necessary as an explanation of status quo. But theories are inherently disprovable, because they are intended as a possible explanation for what cannot logically be proven. Will there ever be a proven definitive explanation of the origin of the universe? Never, because to be proven, it would have required witnesses and observers. Since no scientists were present for it, there will only ever be theories.
Likewise for the origins of life on earth. No scientists were present; there is no possible evidence of the process. Nobody can prove that God created life, and nobody can disprove it. Nobody can prove macroevolution, and nobody can disprove it.
But here are some things that it fails to address:
If macroevolution occurred as described, there should be an approximation of a continuum of intermediary species. Science assumes that birds descended from lizards. If so, there should be a blur of species in between - species with various degrees of meshing of bird and lizard characteristics. Instead, we observe a stepwise pattern of birds on one hand and lizards on the other hand. Where are the 50/50 bird/lizards? Where are the 20/80 bird/lizards? Et cetera. Where is the fossil evidence? The notion of a "missing link" is false. There chain would have to be much longer than one missing link. Assume a 10 mile long chain, and we have only two of the original links. On theory would say that the other links must have existed though there is no evidence; another theory would suggest that there were only those two links to begin with.
If macroevolution occurred as described, then one species should be capable of producing a multitude of species. If this is true, why has it never been observed? Why is there not a single new species of life on earth today that didn't exist hundreds or thousands of years ago? This one point alone is enough to cast serious doubt on the ability of the theory of macroevolution to describe the processes that have produced the world we observe today.
The theory of macroevolution cannot logically be proven or disproven by science. But there is plenty of evidence against it.
Evolution claims that life becomes more diverse as time progresses. (This is one point at which it violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.) It claims that live began as single celled organisms which then evolved over time to encompass the multitude of life forms that exist on earth today.
Here are a couple of problems with that.
There are too many examples of symbiotic relationships. Two (or more) species which supposedly developed along different evolutionary lines and at different time frames and which cannot survive long without the other. What of the obligate symbionts? How does evolution explain this?
More importantly, if nature is becoming more diverse (as evolution claims), why is it that we observe exactly the opposite? Are there more species now than 200 years ago or less? There are less. Has there been any scientifically observed example of a new species that didn't exist 200 years ago? None. This is an example of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics at work. Order tends to disorder. Decay with time. Evolution asks us to believe exactly the opposite.
There are actually two kinds of evolution. Macroevolution (extraspecies changes - the notion that higher life forms evolve from lower), and microevolution (intraspecies changes - the notion that certain traits will develop within a species through breeding.) Microevolution that is uncontrolled will diminish diversity, whereas macroevolution claims to increase diversity. Microevolution is scientifically observable and provable.
Macroevolution is not. Science is based on observation. No person has ever witnessed macroevolution. It is a theory. A theory in the realm of science is not something to be proven or disproven; rather in this context the word "theory" refers to a framework or paradigm designed to explain the current state of things. In this way, the theory of evolution is equivalent to the theory of creation. It is a framework on which people base assumptions. Neither macroevolution nor creation has been or can be witnessed by scientists, so neither one can be scientifically quantifiable.
I repeat: macroevolution has NEVER been witnessed by mankind. There is no evidence to support it. Likewise, there is no evidence to support the theory of creation. Each must be taken by faith.
For whatever reason, science has become a panacea in western culture. To the average American layperson, science is studied in middle school and then never again. Scientists are seen as brilliant people who can do just about anything. They are taken at their word. When a scientist claims that pollution is causing global warming, politicians and the press believe it. When a scientist states that a certain star is 26 million light years away from earth, people believe him. Most people do not know how he reached this conclusion, nor do they even question his methods, because they assume that the scientist knows what he is doing. After all, he is a "scientist." Do you know the intimate details of how carbon-14 dating works? But do you take it for granted when an article in a magazine tells you that a certain dinosaur bone is x millions of years old that this must be true? People often trust scientists blindly - in essense, people "put their faith" in scientists.
I didn't go to college to become a scientist. I'm an engineer and a mathematician. But any engineering degree requires so much science that you get a really good feel for it. If you've gone though many of these classes, you'll be familiar with the term "WAG" - "wild ass guess." I sat through lots of classes with lots of people who are now "scientists," and I can tell you this: when something doesn't make sense despite rerunning the experiment over and over again, a WAG is born. When the numbers don't add up just right, the assumptions are tweaked a bit. When a phenomenon is unexplainable but some basis is needed for other ideas to stand on, a theory is born.
Is this bad? Not necessarily. Theories are necessary as an explanation of status quo. But theories are inherently disprovable, because they are intended as a possible explanation for what cannot logically be proven. Will there ever be a proven definitive explanation of the origin of the universe? Never, because to be proven, it would have required witnesses and observers. Since no scientists were present for it, there will only ever be theories.
Likewise for the origins of life on earth. No scientists were present; there is no possible evidence of the process. Nobody can prove that God created life, and nobody can disprove it. Nobody can prove macroevolution, and nobody can disprove it.
But here are some things that it fails to address:
If macroevolution occurred as described, there should be an approximation of a continuum of intermediary species. Science assumes that birds descended from lizards. If so, there should be a blur of species in between - species with various degrees of meshing of bird and lizard characteristics. Instead, we observe a stepwise pattern of birds on one hand and lizards on the other hand. Where are the 50/50 bird/lizards? Where are the 20/80 bird/lizards? Et cetera. Where is the fossil evidence? The notion of a "missing link" is false. There chain would have to be much longer than one missing link. Assume a 10 mile long chain, and we have only two of the original links. On theory would say that the other links must have existed though there is no evidence; another theory would suggest that there were only those two links to begin with.
If macroevolution occurred as described, then one species should be capable of producing a multitude of species. If this is true, why has it never been observed? Why is there not a single new species of life on earth today that didn't exist hundreds or thousands of years ago? This one point alone is enough to cast serious doubt on the ability of the theory of macroevolution to describe the processes that have produced the world we observe today.
The theory of macroevolution cannot logically be proven or disproven by science. But there is plenty of evidence against it.
posted by Beo at
8:48 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home