The Short Proof of Evolution

dablakmark8

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 28, 2005
Messages
14,188
#21
ag ja now this thread is going nowhere except for the one word meanin science,and that wonderful word is amoeba,shyte you ppl
 

Nanfeishen

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
7,202
#22
Where's the Origin?
"Not one change of species into another is on record....we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."
Charles Darwin

Curious
"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps — the fossils are missing in all the important places."
Francis Hitching,
The Neck of the Giraffe or Where Darwin Went Wrong, Penguin Books, 1982, p.19

Don't Tell The Public!
"As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.
But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable. This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science."
W.R. Thompson,
Entomologist and Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada, "Introduction," in Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1967, reprint, p.xxii

The Worst Mistake In Science
"In a certain sense, the debate transcends the confrontation between evolutionists and creationists. We now have a debate within the scientific community itself; it is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice - between logic and emotion - between fact and fiction.

In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail - no matter what the final result is - no matter how many time-honoured idols have to be discarded in the process.

After all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end - no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers.... if in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside superintelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back.

Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established facts of microbiology, fossils, and mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong.

The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science."
I. L. Cohen,
Mathematician, Researcher, Author, Member New York Academy of Sciences. Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America.

Source, lots of quotes on Evolution:
http://www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.php
 

SuperAntMD

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
1,063
#23
...

1982

London, 6th Edition, 1967, reprint, p.xxii

Source, lots of quotes on Evolution:
http://www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.php
Wow cutting edge stuff this...

An infinite number of quotes prove nothing, especially without the context they were first written in. The proof speaks for itself and a site full of quotes really doesn't touch sides (especially when it also has a section titled "Scientific Arguments for Racism")
 

Claymore

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
7,456
#24
Wow cutting edge stuff this...
Hah. First quote is Darwin himself, which means that it's probably around 130 years old. The "1967" quote was actually quoting Darwin, from 125 years ago. Is that they best they can manage? The Cohen quote, BTW, is from 1984.
 

Edwe

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
2,023
#25
I am not denying that evolution is true (in fact, I do believe in evolution), but I would like to point out that, in my opinion, this proof is flawed.


Ian Johnston said:
The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent… Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep).
Think logically for a moment and you will realise that this statement is based on the assumption that evolution is true. If every living creature has a parent, then every parent will also have a parent, every parent of a parent will also have a parent etc. (you get the idea), meaning the evolutionary family tree extends infinitely far back into the past unless life started at some point in time. Because we know that the universe is not infinitely old, we must assume that life had an origin somewhere. (On a side note, saying that life came from “outer space” is irrelevant and slightly ridiculous, since it had to have arisen by some process anyway, regardless of whether it were on Earth or in outer space).

Granted, this proof allows for life to have originated somewhere, but who says it must necessarily have been a “very simple organism”? We have no evidence of complex life arising from chemical processes, but do we have direct evidence of any life arising from spontaneous chemical processes? Yes, the logical assumption is that the first organism was very simple, but how do we know this is so unless we already assume that evolution is true (i.e. that the complex organism alive today must have descended from simple ones)?.

Maybe I’m just tired and missing some other crucial point, but this seems like a cyclic proof.
 

Praeses

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2005
Messages
4,766
#26
I am not denying that evolution is true (in fact, I do believe in evolution), but I would like to point out that, in my opinion, this proof is flawed.




Think logically for a moment and you will realise that this statement is based on the assumption that evolution is true. If every living creature has a parent, then every parent will also have a parent, every parent of a parent will also have a parent etc. (you get the idea), meaning the evolutionary family tree extends infinitely far back into the past unless life started at some point in time. Because we know that the universe is not infinitely old, we must assume that life had an origin somewhere. (On a side note, saying that life came from “outer space” is irrelevant and slightly ridiculous, since it had to have arisen by some process anyway, regardless of whether it were on Earth or in outer space).

Granted, this proof allows for life to have originated somewhere, but who says it must necessarily have been a “very simple organism”? We have no evidence of complex life arising from chemical processes, but do we have direct evidence of any life arising from spontaneous chemical processes? Yes, the logical assumption is that the first organism was very simple, but how do we know this is so unless we already assume that evolution is true (i.e. that the complex organism alive today must have descended from simple ones)?.

Maybe I’m just tired and missing some other crucial point, but this seems like a cyclic proof.
One thing that you should keep in mind is the evolution that has definitely been taking place in the past few millions of years, ignoring what the original organism looked like. What the original organism looked like is a valid question used to answer another question: "where did evolution begin?" or something in that line :p

Animals change, adapt, mutate slowly over time, this cannot be disputed. It's the main principle of evolution from my perception. The theory of evolution is most probably lacking in more way that anybody can imagine, but there's many people permanently finding new answers, adjusting old theories, refuting old theories. The theory of evolution is evolving :)

Miller
montmorillonite
Some simple possibilities which could've helped in the formation of early cells.
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
5,776
#27
Evolution is science, so a topic about evolution is not out of place in the science section. Creationism, however, has no place in here. kthxbye.
Evolution, but why do the teachers of evolution use fraudelent drawings in their textbooks. The drawings of Ernst Haeckel.
The Icons of Evolution... Jonathan Wells...
Evolusionists go to court preventing the education of religion at school but at the same time brainwash poor children with fraudelent material...wow!
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
5,776
#29
Did somebody just say something? I think I heard a noise...
Edwe, evolusionists are not willing to argue your statement. They go from the presupposition that the living organism you are looking for existed...
...or came about by chance...

In his book "Icons of Evolution" Jonatan Wells argue points that are wrong in evolution...Here is the link...

Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong

http://www.iconsofevolution.org/intro/
 
Top