Question for Darwinists ?

Question

Darwin based his theory on Haeckel's embryology,which has since been exposed as fraud.The whole theory couldn't hold water for 10 seconds.The Cambrian explosion also goes against it.What are your thoughts?

I'm not going agaist evolution.

curious-c that's a good point ;people didn't shun Einstein- Why shun Intelligent Design?

Cyber commie why don't insects get resistant to insecticides?

Mammasuirrel you haven't anwered my question and you get thums-up.It's a sad world we live in.

PaulCyp You should read a book by Jonathan Wells.Intelligent Design has nothing to do with Christianity.Do you agree that Cambrian explosiion goes against Darwin?

Good one Rambo ,no one seems to want to answer your question.

Good one Rambo ,no one seems to want to answer your question.

Girl won :go to dictionary .com and try spelling it properly.

Work for T--Darwin continued to publish subsequent editions of' The the origin of species' well aware ,that Haeckel's contmporaries had denounced him as a fraud.
Why do so few people even know about Haeckel?
I am also using the same insecticide for more than 20 years now
I am attacking Darwinism not necessarily evolution.

Sorry work for T that was intended for Daniel R.I do apologize.

Answer 1

Darwin's 'origin of life' theory is a real wild prediction. Though his observation on animals trying to survive and evolve is correct, his ideas on how life could have been created is just an imagination. He was trying to say something like if we leave some pieces of cotton around, they are bound to form different variety of clothing over a long period of time. Without some intelligence applied to a being, evolution(I mean origin of life theory) fails badly. There is no good explanation for natural selection if we think of body as something that is automatically developed from a chemical soup. Natural selection (part of neo darwinism) is something that always looks for good to make sure it survives. There is no good explanation for why that should happen if we think of body as evolved from a chemical soup. Why should some chemical composition 'care'? There have been harsh whether conditions that are not suitable for living. Still some chemical matter 'worries' a lot about its survival. Matter is not intelligent or is it? Can we imagine some piece of cotton trying to become a shirt or a pant no matter how bad the circumstances are. No rocket science is needed to disprove the theory for proof of 'origin of life'. It just can't answer simple questions.

Don't worry about thumbs up. I have noticed that they do it all the time. I guess it is done by some stupid teenagers who seem to worry that proving religion as correct means no more sex for them or no more wild parties for them.

Note: I think the term evolution itself is wrongly used. If you do more study you will find that evolution theory is something not proposed by one person anymore. It is a thesis made up based on research by many scientists. Any new research made by some other scientist on something totally different subject, if it has some explanation to be associated with body that will be adapted into evolution theory again. I don't even know if we should call such approach a theory. I would rather term it is a subject than a theory. In evolution subject, after adaptation from many researches, there happens to have a good proof for explanation of composition of all the physical beings not to the 'origin of life'. More important, the name of the subject should have been Adaptation not Evolution. The term evolution is a misnomer.

Answer 2

> Darwin based his theory on Haeckel's embryology
No he didn't. He based his theory on observations he made on isolated islands, to which he journeyed in his younger years aboard a ship. On those islands, the animals appeared similar to, but different from, creatures on the mainland.

> whole theory couldn't hold water for 10 seconds
Darwin's book was published in 1859. Evolution as a theory has undergone a few modifications, but is still accepted by scientists and intelligent thinking people today. By my reckoning, it has been more than ten seconds.

> The Cambrian explosion also goes against it
Maybe. But since the Cambrian explosion (which may or may not have been an actual event -- it may just be that we don't have enough good fossils from the times before), Evolution appears to have occurred. Even if we later learn that the Cambrian Explosion was the result of a Creation Event, then we will still say that Evolution is still a good theory to explain what's been going on since. It's been 500 million years; IMHO a good run.

> What are your thoughts?
I wish I had a Carls Jr's burger right now.

Answer 3

A couple of points which have already been mentioned, but they're worth emphasising.

1. Haekel's diagrams were published in 1874. Darwin's Origin of Species was published in 1859 - 15 years earlier. This alone completely refutes your point.

2. Haeckel's theory wasn't "embryology", which just means the study of embryos, which of course is a huge area of study even today. You're referring to "recapitulation", or in full "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny".

3. A side point: even though the recapitulation theory as stated by Haeckel has been discredited, the similarities between embryos at certain stages in their development are real. For example, human embryos really do develop gill slits, or at least "pharyngeal arches" which are the same as the structures that in fish go on to become gill slits.

4. The Cambrian "explosion", so-called, actually took place over a period of between 5 and 40 *million* years. This is only *relatively* sudden, compared to the usual slow pace of evolutionary change.

5. It's also important to note that this wasn't the beginning of multi-cellular life - we have fossil evidence of that from at least 50 million years before the "explosion". And not all modern-day phyla had appeared even by the end of the explosion.

6. There are plenty of excellent theories as to why the Cambrian explosion was so (relatively) quick. One of the main ones is that what happened during the period was the evolution of hard parts, which meant that it was much easier for creatures to fossilise - so the apparent diversification we see in the fossil record is only because earlier creatures, which were still very diverse, didn't fossilise as well.

7. Again as other posters have stated, for a theory that shouldn't last 10 seconds, evolution has thrived for 150 years and is still going strong. It is accepted by the overwhelming majority of all scientists, and also by most religious people including all the major churches (Catholic, CofE, etc). It's only a minority of religious people who choose not to accept the evidence.

8. In reply to your response to cyber_commie, insects certainly _do_ become immune to pesticides, and this is a massive problem. There's a great story in Carl Zimmer's book Evolution about a town in the US that found its pesticides were no longer working against the insects in its orchards, and thought the chemical company were ripping them off. So they built their own factory to make pesticides, but of course the insects carried on evolving immunity.

Answer 4

Natural selection is not based on embryology. From Darwin's perspective it was based on ecology and random mutation. Today of course we know the evolutionary process is more complex than Darwin envisioned (just as in every other area of science), and mutation and natural selection, while both valid concepts, do not by themselves account for all evolutionary change.

An excellent book on the subject, by a devout Christian and professional biologist, is Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller. Read it, if you are not afraid that the truth might threaten some of your preconceived notions about the natural world.

Answer 5

No, he based his argument on all the evidence including fossils and common descent of species in isolated environments. Haekel's embryo drawings were published 17 years after "Origin of Species". Thank you for, yet again, demonstrating that Creationists are really bad liars.

The Cambrian explosion -- the rapid development of segmented creatures -- is easily explained by the development of the homeobox genes.

Answer 6

I am sorry to burst your creationist bubble, but evolution is not a theory like creationism, it is a cold hard scientific fact that has been empirically proved time and time again.
How can you explain the way viruses evolve in response to antibiotics?
How can you explain the way new plants come into being in very highly observed habitats?
How can creationism explain the way chimpanzees are getting more intelligent?
Creationism is not scientific at all, it is a way of trying to prove the existence of a creator by attacking evolution, and is as such a religious argument that uses false logic. It is faith based and as such has no room in a scientific argument.

Answer 7

Darwin did not in ANY way base his theory on embryology, but on his personal experience of adaptations in animal life whilst aboard the HMS Beagle. Embryology has been shown to be false, and has been discarded. If evolution were false the same would happen.

Please explain how the Cambrian explosion goes against evolution. I mean, according to you guys, the Cambrian period never even existed, right?

Answer 8

At long last! You have exposed Darwin and the Evolutionary sciences as FRAUD. Well done, God was waiting for someone of your ilk to save the day. I have contacted the Natural History Museum, they agree to all of your brilliant observations, and will replace ALL of their World renowned resources with Creationist tableaux displaying your TRUTH. Well done. Must go now, have a rattlesnake and strychnine waiting. Long live reality.

Answer 9

Whoever Darwin was influenced by, and the ultimate accuracy of their ideas, is not relevant to the current Theory of Evolution. Was Newton wrong to present the laws of physics as he best could at the time? Are current theories hobbled by his theories' shortcommings? No and No. Darwin was a pioneer and a martyr in his own life because of hateful, fearful, theists.

Answer 10

user-friendly, a creature grew to become into born with the mutation of a delicate ridge above its eyes, it grew to become into much less possibly to be blinded than that is kin individuals so the genetic trait grew to become into surpassed directly to the subsequent technology and grew to become dominant. How do you clarify why animals exist with each and every in-between degree of eye progression. From some easy gentle cells, dents that would experience easy direction, by way of pin-hollow cameras, genuine as much as lensed variations. Why is it that a number of those creatures carry an analogous gene series that controls eye progression if we're not appropriate? ...i think of you ignored the entire factor of evolution. The mutation did no longer have a objective, it in basic terms grew to become out to be useful, helped the creature to stay to tell the story, so grew to become into surpassed on. The creatures that had mutations that weren't useful all died... get it? No, i did no longer think of so.