Darwin said the following things would make his evolution theory of 1831 proven wrong. The've all happened. ?

Question

Sow how is it still right??

Darwin said this…

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

OK, using Darwin's own words, let's dig in further and look at one of these complex organs - the human eye…

The human eye is enormously complicated - a perfect and interrelated system of about 40 individual subsystems, including the retina, pupil, iris, cornea, lens and optic nerve. For instance, the retina has approximately 137 million special cells that respond to light and send messages to the brain.

together, they capture, deliver and interpret up to 1.5 million pulse messages a milli-second! It would take dozens of Cray supercomputers programmed perfectly and operating together flawlessly to even get close to performing this task.

Darwin specifically discussing the incredible complexity of the eye in Origin of Species:

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible.

then he says

...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils.

I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."

Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species.

The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us?… The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record

Take a frog and put him in a blender. Turn the blender on for seven minutes, or until whipped to a frothy consistency."

He stared at me with that look...

"Pour the mixture into an open container and place the container in the sun for a few million years. After a few million years, retrieve the container and examine the contents..."

I gave him a nod, "Do you have a frog?"

He thought for only a second...

"Nope, you still have frog soup," he laughed.

"You're absolutely right," I agreed. "How can you have anything but a soupy mixture containing the building blocks of frog life. With no information code to tie it all together, you have nothing resembling any kind of self-existing organism."

odds are better for a tornado to hit a junkyard and come up with a perfectly assembled 747......

put your trust in G-d.

Answer 1

Good points.

Cordially,
John
http://www.GodSci.org

Answer 2

Is this a question or a sermon? Darwin isn't the final word on evolution, and himself believed it to his death.

The "capture, deliver and interpret up to 1.5 million pulse messages a milli-second..." is nonsense. Light travels at 186,000 miles per second, as do electro-magnetic pulses, the same type of energy which is going around in the brain. Furthermore, the eye does NOT interpret anything (nor the retina, for that matter), the brain does, and the brain has numerous neurons which do that. The eye does not even handle focusing and so forth, once again the brain does that.

The statement of "137 million special cells" sounds like there are 137 million different kinds of cells at work, which is misleading. The retina is a type of nerve which carries information to the brain for processing and is made up of nerve cells.

The only thing the eye does is capture images, like a camera does (something which isn't that complicated) and sends those images to the brain.

Answer 3

Other than your meaningless quote mines, you are also wrong about the eye being "perfect". Ask anyone with glasses.

Cephalopod eyes have features that make them superior. Humans have a bilnd spot where the optic nerve passes throught the retina, and sends neurons out over the retina, causing a small loss in light. The octopus eye is strucurally similar to the human eye, but lacks the blind spot and light loss since its photoreceptors are on the top of the retina. There are "living fossils". My favorite for intermediate eye forms is the chambered nautilus, a shelled cephalopod, with an intermediate eye form that shows how the octopus eye evolved.

Answer 4

Lay what on the line – misrepresentation of the truth?

Darwin follows this with several pages explaining the answer to his own question (such is how scientists think and how science works- open honesty [a foreign concept to Creationists]), including:

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. (Darwin 1872, 143-144)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113_1.html


These bogus issues continue to recycled by Creationists (and their more cowardly cousins, Intelligent Design freaks) and are only effective to the degree that an individual lacks proper education.

However, I cannot pass up another opportunity to point how totally morally and ethically bankrupt Creationists are.

One of there most used and popular lies involves the alleged contemporeneity of human and dinosaur footprints in the same stratified geologic layer in Glen Rose, Texas. Sometimes they even present a graphic looking from a low angle at an apparent five-toed print (i.e., human) and a dinosaur footprint.

The 'angled shot' is important because it misrepresents the size of the ‘human’ footprint, which actually (and accurately) measures18 inches in length; 13 inches in width; and 5 inches in thickness (a mold cast from the footprint holds more than 5 gallons (almost 20 liters) of water). That is just a bit outside the range of human footprints, but, remarkably, well within the size range of other dinosaurs.

Answer 5

at the same time as Darwin would were incorrect about some issues that doesn't propose that there is something incorrect interior the perception of evolution. Darwin isn't the king of evolution. in truth, the perception became already interior the medical community. Darwin basically receives the credit for it because of his artwork interior the Galapagos. attempting to declare that evolution is proved incorrect at the same time as it really is got here upon that Darwin became incorrect on another concern isn't medical in any respect. the individuals attempting to make that declare are basically displaying how out of contact they are with technology.

Answer 6

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible"

Why don't you give people the rest of this quote:

"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound."

And if you took the time to look at the eyes of all of the transition species, starting with the eyespots of the Euglenoids, you would understand that the eye could have evolved through small changes...

Answer 7

Will you ever get tired of living 200 years in the past or are you content to remain ignorant of the truth?

This is also a cut and paste argument that has been refuted many times. If you wonder why people don't list the arguments here......it is because IF (and that is a HUGE if) you had the desire to educate yourself you could just google the question and save yourself some embarrassment.

Answer 8

Obviously his 1831 theory was flawed. If you pay attention, you might realize this is why it was called a "Theory". Obviously in light of modern scientific advancements, we know much more about the ways and abilities of nature to upgrade it's own species. You may also notice lots of other things have also been improved upon since 1831, besides Darwins Theory. Such as automated transportation, medicine, surgical techniques, man I could list stuff all day that has been improved or devalued since 1831. Toilet paper. Should your question also be improved, or are you still in the theory stage as well?

Answer 9

AMEN to that! I also heard that darwin's last words were "I was wrong.."

and yes, evolution is the most absurd in the highest degree possible.

just read Genesis, it is the TRUE meaning of how life was formed

Answer 10

Well thats a bit of a stretch to assume your conclusion.

The eye has evolved by successive genetic modifications over a period over a billion years.

Answer 11

Again, from your own admission you do not believe that the earth is but 6000 years old. Therefore, these fossils you speak of are not possible. Your logic is faulty.