If Darwin were alive today, would he refute his therory of evolution?

Question

Given all we know about the binary code found in DNA, the growing body of evidence for intelligent design, and the almost total lack of transitory fossils, I believe he would..what do you think?

Answer 1

As an over all theory for the development of all species perhaps but certainly not for the evolutionary process of "survival of the fittest" within a species.

While there are definitely some holes in the theory in it's totality there is a great body of evidence in the inter-development of each species for positive selection of desirable trails based on survival.

Answer 2

No, he would have stronger evidence supporting it. That evidence, my misguided friend, is in the genomes of every organism today. There is a relatively new field in biology that is studying evolution from the aspect of molecular genetics. They have confirmed evolution's power in biology by finding what has happened at the molecular level to the species. This fills the gap that the limited amount of materials that were fossilized cannot. On that note, there are transitory fossils. However, each time one is found, that creates two more gaps between those that preceded it, and those that came after it. To ask for a complete fossil record of evolution is impossible since not everything became a fossil. It is like asking a crime scene investigator to find every single shred of evidence to prove a crime. Also, as others have noted, DNA is coded by 4 nucleotides and is not a binary code. Also, as I have pointed out, the evidence found in DNA SUPPORTS evolution. Lastly, give up on intelligent design already! Even the vatican has denounced it on the grounds that it is creationism trying to be science. Intelligent design was accepted as incorrect ever since David Hume made his wonderful argument against it in the 1700s (thats before Darwin even came along). Pretty much only the United States has strong supporters of intelligent design, and that is because they feel they are losing a war against science, even though they are the only ones fighting the war. What I mean by that is that science is not out to fight religion, it is merely concerned with studying the natural world through empirical analysis. Religion, by definition, deals with the supernatural, so science merely doesn't concern itself with religious matters.

Answer 3

You need to stop thinking that the theory of evolution has anything to do with creation. Darwin's theory was based on contemporary observation, and it is clearly correct. How we got here is of no concern. How species are evolving now is the purpose of the theory of evolution, and the reason you need to understand it is to explain observations you see in populations today.

And there is no evidence for intelligent design. DNA is not a binary code, it is a a base-4 numerical code, if anything. And there are transitory species alive today, right now, which you can observe for yourself if you go out and look. Who cares about fossils and creation and all that BS... we can observe evolution happening right now, and that's what's important.

I really wish people would get over this stupid argument. Creationism does not exclude evolution, and evolution doesn't exclude the possibility of a creator. We will never know what happened way back when. Evolution is a correct theory for what we see right now. Creationism does not attempt to explain what we see in populations today. They are not competing theories.

You may be interested to know that Darwin was an ordained minister. He is buried in Westminster Abbey, which is not a place where they normally bury heretics.

Answer 4

The theory of evolution does not seek to dethrone the idea of a god, nor does it strive to prove it. It's entire purpose is to explain the process of life from how it began to the present day.

There are MANY transitional fossils that have been found. The problem with the fossil data is that often it is a matter of luck...it takes remarkable confluences of situations to preserve remains. Think about it, what happens after death most of the time? Rot, even the bones eventually break down. Fossils are the exceptions to that...they are preservations of some degree.

What about the T. Rex? Recent research suggests that modern day chickens have connections back to that massive dinosaur, thanks to protein analysis.

Darwin was a naturalist and he wasn't the first to think of evolution, just merely the one that got the most credit.

BTW, can't remember the screen name, but Darwin never used the phrase "survival of the fittest." That phrase actually was coined by Edmund Spencer, a french Sociologist known as the father of Sociology. He used the phrase to explain why women and minorities could not move above a certain point of society saying that they were merely too weak to do so.

Answer 5

I do not think Darwin would completely refute his theory but he would be concerned about a few things. At the time Darwin wrote 'the Origin of Species,' new fossils where continually being discovered, making Darwin sure the fossil record would surely prove his theory correct in a matter of years. This is what created the idea of the missing link, Darwin was confident that missing links would soon be found, and prove his theory correct. I think he would be concerned that the fossil record has not produce as much evidence as he expected.

Answer 6

"Growing body of evidence for intelligent design"????? What evidence???

If anything, there is MUCH more evidence supporting Darwin's theory today than there was back then.

"Almost total lack of transitory fossils"?? Where are you getting this info from, Fox News?

Look, if you want to believe in God/Buddha/Mohammad, etc, that's fine. That doesn't mean that what science discovers and theorizes over necessarily impeaches what religion teaches. There are plenty of parts of the Bible which religion simply ignores because it doesn't make sense, or contradicts other things that believers hold true.

Answer 7

In Darwin's day the mechanism of heredity was not well understood. Heredity was thought to work by a blending of parental characteristics. If that was true, then where did the variation come from to drive evolution? This was the one aspect that troubled Darwin until his death.

Now the genetics of heredity is fairly well understood and we are quickly learning how it works on a molecular level. The genome has been called the ultimate forensic record of evolution. It would absolutely amaze Darwin how his notion of evolution by natural selection has been verified by the molecular analysis of heredity.

But contrary to your presumption, we do not see intelligent design in genomic sequences. Quite the opposite. Over 98% of genomic sequences have nothing to do with protein production (gene activity). Most of our genome is a landscape of fossil genes (genes that were active in our distant ancestors, which have been deactivated by stop codons). Indeed, molecular geneticists have quite aptly termed intelligent design a genetic fantasy in which preformed genes would have to wait for the "right" species to come along.

As for transitional fossils, I do hold a doctorate in paleontology and can assure you that transitional fossils have been found to give a great evolutionary history of nearly all chordates. Read some basic texts on modern paleontology, rather than creationist websites for (much) more information in this.

Answer 8

What lack of transition fossils? What growing body of evidence for ID?

Try learning about the evolution information we have today, before you say that the ID is more credible. I suggest http://talkorigins.org/

The evidence for evolution is abundant. Sorry.

Tlbs101: that story is a documented hoax.

Answer 9

Um, huh? Evidence for intelligent design? Hate to break it to you, but all the evidence supports evolution. Any "evidence" you have for creationism or ID is propaganda.

Answer 10

I think you are delusional! Even if Darwin never existed, the theory of evolution by natural selection would. That is the thing about science you delusional creationists will never understand.