How can you refute Darwin? Here is Evolution and if you accept all parts, then you accept evolution.?

Question

Remember, like gravity....it is 'just' a Theory

Here you go:

1. Many more individuals are born than can possibly survive, thus there is competition for limited resources

2. Within this vast number there is variation, and because of this variation some of these individuals will have an advantage--however slight--over others

3. The ones who have the advantages are more competitive and thus they are more likely to obtain the limited resources

4. The ones who are succeeding in securing the limited resources are more likely to reproduce and thus pass onto their offspring the more competitive traits

Darwin

No one cares if you lead ur life by 'faith' but u owe urself the honesty that u r not sure about 'proof' but that for you faith is enough...thanks!

Answer 1

people can refute Darwin because people are unreasonable. They can say that any evidence was planted by the devil to confuse us or god to test our faith.

Answer 2

Darwin's "survival of the fittest" is what is known as tautology, or meaningless circular logic. EX: Which ones will survive? The fittest will. How do you know these are the fittest?...well..because they survived. Wow! Happens every time and can't be disproven. Not scientific at all.
Despite 150 years and a wealth of important fossil finds, the entire record still fails to provide a single tangible example to uphold Darwin's theories. On the contrary, "proof" of evolution have repeatedly been exposed as embarrassing frauds (piltdown man, Haenkel's embryos). I don't recall the theory of gravity or relativity needing scandal and fraud to uphold them. There's never been any transitional fossils found, even in the Cambrian period find. It takes as much faith to subscribe to Darwin's evolution theory as Creationism.

Answer 3

Darwin based his "theory" on bad science.

He was under the false assumption that the cell was the smallest part of a living thing.

He decided that the cell was filled with a fluid that he referred to as an "ambiotic" fluid.

He guessed that foetal cells within the mother (he referred to them as "undesignated" cells) could go through a transformation and develop differently from the parent if the external forces in nature were strong enough.

Well, since his first assumption was wrong, then his conclusion was also wrong.

Of course, now we know about the nucleus of the cell, mitochondria, protein and protein synthesis, RNA, DNA etc, etc, etc.

His theories were both unscientific as well as illogical.

It's quite easy to refute Darwin. A little science goes a long way!

Now, in the words of Sherlock Holmes, when you have eliminated all of the impossible solutions, then what is left, no matter how improbably, is the correct solution.

Since Darwin's theory is wrong, based on faulty science and bad logic, then the only other possible solution, while it may seem improbable to you, is THE solution - that God created life.

Answer 4

That part of Dawin's theory is sound in it's thinking. The other parts of his theory, those that deal with one species of animal becoming a totally different type of animal are ludicrous and can only be excused because of the lack of scientific understanding of DNA during Darwin's days.

"In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."—*Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859 and 1984 editions), p. 184.

HOW THE GIRAFFE GOT ITS LONG NECK

The giraffe used to look just like other grazing animals in Africa. But while the other animals were content to eat the grasses growing in the field and the leaves on the lower branches, the giraffe felt that the survival of his fittest depended on reaching up and plucking leaves from still higher branches. This went on for a time, as he and his brothers and sisters kept reaching ever higher. Only those that reached the highest branches of leaves survived.

All the other giraffes in the meadow died from starvation (all because they were too proud to bend down and eat the lush vegetation that all the other short-necked animals were eating). So only the longest-necked giraffes had enough food to eat while all their brother and sister giraffes died from lack of food. Sad story; don’t you think? But that is the story of how the giraffe grew its long neck.

Picture the tragic tale: Dead giraffes lying about in the grass while the short-necked grazers, such as the antelope and gazelle, walked by them, having plenty to eat. So there is a lesson for us: Do not be too proud to bend your neck down and eat. Oh, you say, but their necks were by that time too long to bend down to eat grass! Not so; every giraffe has to bend its neck down to get water to drink. *Darwin’s giraffes died of starvation, not thirst.

"So under nature with the nascent giraffe, the individuals which were the highest browsers, and were able during dearths to reach even an inch or two above the others, will often have been preserved . . By this process long-continued . . combined no doubt in a most important manner with the inherited effects of increased use of parts, it seems to me almost certain that any ordinary hoofed quadruped might be converted into a giraffe."—*Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species (1859), p. 202.

"This issue [of how the giraffe got its long neck] came up on one occasion in a pre-med class in the University of Toronto. The lecturer did not lack enthusiasm for his subject and I’m sure the students were duly impressed with this illustration of how the giraffe got its long neck and of the power of natural selection.

"But I asked the lecturer if there was any difference in height between the males and the females. He paused for a minute as the possible significance of the question seemed to sink in. After a while he said, ‘I don’t know. I shall look into it.’ Then he explained to the class that if the difference [in male and female giraffe neck lengths] was substantial, it could put a crimp in the illustration unless the males were uncommonly gentlemanly and stood back to allow the females ‘to survive as well.’

"He never did come back with an answer to my question; but in due course I found it for myself. According to Jones the female giraffe is 24 inches shorter than the male. The observation is confirmed by Cannon. Interestingly, the Reader’s Digest publication, The Living World of Animals, extends the potential difference to 3 feet!

Answer 5

You know, an evolutionist posted the comment, that for a mammalian species to survive, it needs nothing less than 200 'couples'.
If this is true, then how did evolution provide for humans, or for that matter, any other of the millions of mammals?

Answer 6

this does not prove evolution.

variation usually occurs without giving any advantage to survival..just look at the number of breeds of dogs.

sometimes more competitive people end up with heart disease ( more stressed) or end up in jail for crimes...

Answer 7

sounds logical .. but ur still askin me to have faith ...

Answer 8

All of it is a lie.

Answer 9

WTF?