What's wrong with Darwin?

Question

This isn't an argument in favor of creationism of the Biblical sort. I don't think there is one that isn't overturned by easy observation.

But one of the problems with the tug-of-war between Biblical creationists and Darwin worshipers is that science has been placed in a defensive position, defending Darwin at the cost of recognizing contrary evidence.

When the Darwin hypothesis emerged, not much was yet known about fossil records. Since thenm, a lot has been learned.

The 'usual' approach to evolutionary thought has little more support in fossil records than the creationist approach.

Fossil records show countless dead-ends, false starts, and almost universal jumps without linkage. A few of these make sense, but so many, with almost no direct intermediary linkage, bring legitimate questions and doubts to the table. Yet, science is so busy defending against creationists they aren't looking for other answers.

Creationists, aren't you ashamed of yourselves?

Thumbs up to all of you. Good answers all. Thanks for the replies.

Answer 1

The biggest problem with evolution
is that the center of a gene turned out
to be nothing but a vacuum.

The best current theory for creation is
that all things exist as a combination
of genetic frequencies that interface
with energy bits known as quarks.
It's the time and space that comes
and goes.

The Hadron atom smasher starts up
this fall. It could verify that when mass
collapses, only ten of the 16 bosons are
convertable. The remaining six (quarks)
remain a constant.

If nothing else, it will probably change
the way we see creation, ourselves and
our universe.

Answer 2

This is a difficult forum to make a point like that because you only had time to write an introduction to the argument and not get to specific facts to support it.

Darwin knew about fossils, but since he lived we've discovered so many more that support his theory. What he didn't know about was genetics, and that has given even more evidentiary support to his views.

Since Darwin's model predicts and explains extinctions, I do not know why you think dead ends (and "false starts") in the fossil record pose a problem. As for gaps in the fossil record, they are inevitable. Very few dead creatures are fossilized. Of those that are, very few remain intact, of those very few are ever found. We expect gaps.

But what we find very much supports Darwin's views. We've got a number of species where we can identify small changes building on each other over long periods of time. So I'm at a loss to figure out how you find the fossil record reveals anything contrary to the theory of evolution. There will always be gaps, but the pattern is clear.

See, for instance: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html

Answer 3

huh??

Dude, that is NOT creationists fault (or are you being sarcastic, i honestly can't tell). It is truth that there are a few shortcomings to evolution theory, i tell you this as an biologist and evolutionist. It is true that these shortcomings will probably all be solved soon as science advances and we gt to know more about life (They'll probably lead to the appearance of more holes that will be cover with further advances. Those further advances will uncover more holes and so it goes). I can't understand why every other evolutionist here on Y!A seems to have a problem with this, worshipping evolution and not alwing any critic to be made towards it, but it sure isn't the creationist fault.

About the fossil record, there are plenty of it that corroborates evolution. The occurrence of fossils is a rare thing and it is amazing that we know so much about how was life in the past, and it all points clearly to evolution.

Oh, also, of the few serious scientific holes the theory of evolution has. I have never, ever, ever heard or read a creationist even mention a single one of them. NOT ONE. They seem to prefer to mention the second law of thermodynamics, the absence of fossil records and other lies, instead of trying to be minimally serious

Paz de Cristo

Answer 4

For the most part, science has marched on the past 150 years finding more and more evidence that shows evolution and many of its details to be solid fact. It is so obvious that there is no reason for anybody to look for another explanation.

These public spats play out from time to time and the sad thing is that the creationists are still using the same arguements against things which certain scientists said a hundred years ago because they don't know all that has happened since.

Answer 5

Actually, do to the relatively low percentage of creatures in the fossil record and the knowledge of how specific conditions must be in order to result in fossilization, the lack of intermediate species is almost a certainty and we have to work with what we have. The thing most anti-evolutionists don't get is that there is no such thing as a transitional lifeform, because all lifeforms are transitional (if that makes sense). I do agree with your point that science has been put on the defense (what a back @sswards situation), but next to that my studies have found no such universal jumps without the easy explanation of a lack of discovered (or possibly preserved) fossils.

Its plain and simple fact that evolution occurs, indisputably. The only possible debate is how, and that is where theories such as natural selection (and Darwins origin of species) come into play. When criticizing or promoting darwin, you are really only playing with the theory of natural selection, which is the proposed mechanism for evolution... which is biological fact. (This is readily observed via genetic mutations resulting in only slight variences to the overall lifeform, however, over vast amounts of time great change occurs cumulatively.)

Answer 6

Darwin was a darn good scientist for his time, considering what he had to work with. He know that every living thing, from a slime mold to an elephant, is made of the same building blocks. He knew that -- even though the word genetics hadn't yet been invented and nobody had even dreamed of DNA.

What's wrong with Darwin? He was a good scientist but a deadly dull writer.

Incidentally, you may be interested to learn that Darwin was a creationist. He believed that all species evolved from a common ancestor but he also believed that the original ancestor was created.

Answer 7

Science should be free to change and to grow. Yesterday's discoveries were valid yesterday...but new discoveries have been made...and science is proving not to be up to the challenge.
WHY, then, is it necessary to defend a theory that has proven to be flawed? SO WHAT if it IS proven to be wrong? WHAT, exactly, would science lose?
I am not a "creationist"...but I am concerned that our children's education is being sacrificed over "winning a point"...
IF there are flaws in the theory of evolution, I don't want my kids to be taught that it is a "fact". I want them taught honestly, that there are flaws, and shown what they are. Are we so terrified that our kids might catch some sort of "creationist virus" that we feel we must shield them from the truth, then?



Or...is the real terror, that there just might, after all, be a God?????

Answer 8

Darwin worshipers? If he had them, there would be a problem.

Molecular genetics confirm anatomic phylogeny.

There were more factors than Darwin considered. The modern theory of evolution has already incorporated those other answers. Natural selection is still the keystone.

Answer 9

optimistic. He became human, he became incorrect some lot of issues. in spite of the shown fact that, his uncomplicated define of organic determination became maximum suitable sufficient that the trendy self-discipline of evolutionary biology became released from his artwork. nonetheless, if there have been no Darwin, so what? Darwin became hesitant to submit his observations through profound implications. It took a letter from a youthful guy named Alfred Wallace to persuade Darwin to submit. What became in the letter? questions approximately innovations the greater youthful guy became coming to, concerning organic determination. in actuality, Darwin, whilst he gave his first paper on the undertaking gave co-credit to Wallace, even nevertheless Darwin have been engaged on the belief for some years. If neither Darwin or Wallace had existed, Thomas Huxley became coming to comparable conclusions. And there have been others. Why? because of the fact as observations of nature grow to be greater exact in the mid-nineteenth century, evolution via means of organic determination became being considered because of the fact the main probable mechanism for exchange in nature. the character of medical inquiry is that observations and experimental consequences ought to be repeatable via others before they are going to be universal.

Answer 10

Perhaps we ought to figure out how Darwin was able to reconcile his religion with his hypothesis. Creationists are generally loathe to admit that Darwin was an ordained minister and is buried in Westminster Catherdral.