BLOGROLL!
Right Minded
Things That Make You Go Hmmm About Evolution
This is a comment my father submitted to his local paper in response to the local school board's decision to embrace the scientific theory of evolution whole heartedly:
Well let's see now about this evolution thing. If man evolved from monkeys - why do we still have monkeys? Why is there no known link between monkeys and people? What am I missing?
This is a good point. It would be interesting to see what sort of response the pro-evolutionists would have to offer in explaining this obstruction to their water tight theory. And I should stress the word theory.
Well let's see now about this evolution thing. If man evolved from monkeys - why do we still have monkeys? Why is there no known link between monkeys and people? What am I missing?
This is a good point. It would be interesting to see what sort of response the pro-evolutionists would have to offer in explaining this obstruction to their water tight theory. And I should stress the word theory.
posted by Clay | 3:52 PM
31 Comments:
Darwin himself admitted that, if transitional fossils were not found (missing links) within 100 years (already passed) then his theory should be considered disproven.
Unfortunately evolution is now an established secular religion. There is money and political hay to be made and it will likely never go away no matter how ludicrous it is proven to be.
Hope all is well for you my dear friend as we celebrate this joyous CHRISTmas season
i am a christian and i still believe in evolution.
the existing monkeys can be explained with this scenario: if you put 100,000 monkeys on one side of a river with the exact same conditions as usual, they won't change much. if you put 100,000 monkeys on the other side, they will adapt to survive in the new environment.
by the way, humans do share about 99% of DNA with monkeys. thought you'd like to know.
either way, have a merry Christmas!
Kevin,
So, you are saying that only some of a species would evolve up the chain, depending on circumstances, in lieu of an entire species evolving for survival?
Do we have any evidence of this evolution from other species other than monkeys to men?
If not, then there is plenty of room for doubt.
And where is the "missing link"?
Merry Christmas to you too. I am a christian too.
Actually Kevin, humans only share about 95% of DNA with chimps, not 99%.
We also share 75% of DNA with nematode worms, 60% with Drosophila fruit flies and 50% with bananas. Do you think they are our evolutionary cousins too?
The reason for such closely related DNA is common design, not evolution.
i realize now that my last post made little to no sense. let me say it the way it was supposed to be said.
if you leave one monkey in it's normal habitat, it won't do anything different. if you put another monkey in the middle of Chicago, it will have to change. a few years from now, if you compare the monkeys, their actions will be very different.
this is the same with evolution. a group of monkeys put in a city might evolve stronger legs to dodge cars or people. then, those with the mutated legs would survive, while the normal ones would have a higher chance of being killed. after that, it's a simple matter of natural selection.
Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas, Obob!
Kevin,
There is a large difference between having stronger leg muscles and evolving into a totally different creature. Besides, I'd bet that monkeys are already strong enough to survive in the city, with the possible exception of not knowing to watch out for cars, or stick forks into electrical outlets. ; )
Merry Christmas to you and yours.
Kevin, you're referring to adaptation, not evolution. Turn a monkey loose in Chicago and he will probably die. Just as a water creature would die if he moved to land. That is part of what disproves evolution. Species cannot make perfect evolutionary leaps without dying.
Evolution contends that Species X evolved over a vast amount of time into Animal Y out of necessity (survival of the fittest). Yet the species would die in the transition. A sea-to-land creature would have to be born with gills (and would die on land) or with lungs (and would die in water). And yes, I know about lungfish and mudskippers. They just prove how incredibly creative our God is.
This comment has been removed by the author.
in my younger dumber drinking days I had a theory:
there is no missing link. There were apes, a few modifications, then presto! God flipped the switch and made Adam. It may go along with the intelligent design theory (which this odd thought came to mind 20 years before I heard of ID.) There is zero support to this, just a humble and simple thought
This type of debate will be around forever.
People of religion will say "Where's the proof?" Yet at the same time, the only proof they have for their side is their faith in their religion. (and that topic will spark the debate of "it says so in the bible", but I won't get into that one at this time.)
The fact is no matter what you beleif, there will holes in it.
As far as the missing link, well it's called the missing link for a reason. And there are lots of theories about that: big foot would be the prime example. (hey look another debate could be started).
See how many debates can be started by just one?
Nobody knows for sure, without a doubt, possessing evidence that CAN'T be taken more than one way. Until that evidence is produced, nobody will know for sure. (this one would be part of one of the debates that can already be started).
So, why not just let people think how they do, and not try to change how they view the world (cause most people don't like to have other try to change what they belief).
Ok after saying all that, I will tell you what I beleif. I tend to agree with evolution? Am I right? Who knows, but it's how I feel.
"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
That's a lousy argument against evolution. You make the false assumption that it is about currently-existing species changing into other currently-existing species, in a set of parallel lines which will all end up as Homo sapiens one day.
Evolution does not occur on a straight line; rather, it occurs over many lines that split, re-split, etc...Some lines are closely related to others, such as chimpanzees and humans, but no serious evolutionary biologist is saying that humans evolved from chimpanzees or monkeys--just that there is a common ancestor.
To incorporate what some people have said about groups of monkeys in Chicago and near rivers:
Say you have a species which is adapted to a moderately-dry climate with a somewhat rocky terrain, and it occupies a wide range. Over the course of geologic time, various changes to the land are going to occur, which will in turn affect the climate. Remember that this happens over a very long period of time, okay? Every once in a while, a member of this species will be born with some genetic anomaly which gives it some slight advantage over the other members of its species in this slowly-changing environment. It's more likely to reproduce and pass on those genetics. Then, take into account that these geologic changes are not going to change the entire range of the species in the same way or at the same time, so one set of genetic changes are going to benefit the animals in one part of the range, while another set will benefit animals in another part of the range.
Enough of these relatively small changes over time will create a species which is distinct from the original species.
"Say you have... Over the course... various changes... going to occur... which will in turn ... Every once in a while... take into account..."
There's an awful lot of speculation in that paragraph. In fact, it's nothing but speculation without one shred of evidence.
Evolution takes the known (today's species) and the discovered (fossil fragments) and creates an "explanation" from whole cloth in order to reconcile the two. That's not science, it's science fiction. Evolution is no more than a fairy tale.
Alright. If you're simply going to dismiss that explanation for semantic reasons, how about something we've witnessed in the past few years--the evolution of resistant strains of bacteria and viruses. It's the same principle I described earlier, only on a smaller scale and in lifeforms which reproduce extremely rapidly. If subsequent generations of these microbes undergo enough changes, they will be distinct enough from their ancestors to be considered a separate species.
This is beside the point, but I can't understand how you can dismiss evolution as a "secular religion" with absolutely no evidence, and at the same time mention that existing species and the fossil record are used to come to the conclusion that species evolved. Existing species and the fossil record ARE evidence.
And honestly, what hard, physical evidence do you have that the Bible is 100% true? A fickle being in the sky creates everything in six days, then puts people in paradise and tells them they can eat anything they want, except the fruit which would give them knowledge of the nature of God and of their existence. When they do eat it, God casts them out of paradise and strips them of their immortality. And not only that, God punishes all of their descendents for the rest of eternity for something over which the descendents had absolutely no control?
That sounds to me like it fits the criteria of a fairy tale.
"That sounds to me like it fits the criteria of a fairy tale."
No that sounds to me like bad theology.
That sounds to me like it fits the criteria of a fairy tale.
"No that sounds to me like bad theology."
My thought exactly.
I'll admit that I'm no Biblical scholar, but I fail to see how you can believe many of the things in the Bible while claiming evolution is some sort of secular, religious fairy tale. Not to mention that my comments and your responses didn't have much to do with the original post itself.
So I'll address that.
"If man evolved from monkeys - why do we still have monkeys?"
Man did not evolve from monkeys, nor from chimpanzees, gorillas, or orangutans. We are the latest one line of descendants of some common ancestor of monkeys, and more recently of the apes.
"That is a good point."
No, it's not a good point. I find it interesting that people who lack a decent understanding of evolutionary theory will often ask that question, thinking they've disproved evolution. Along the same lines, questioning the validity of evolution because it's a "theory" doesn't do anything except represent your misunderstanding of the scientific definition of that word.
" Not to mention that my comments and your responses didn't have much to do with the original post itself."
You were the one who brought up the Bible. You attempted to debunk it so, I responded by pointing out you ineptness in trying to do so.
"We are the latest one line of descendants of some common ancestor of monkeys, and more recently of the apes."
Common ancestor? Were is the proof of this alleged common ancestor? That is the rub. Scientists have never found this "missing link", yet we are just supposed to accept on faith that it existed?
"Along the same lines, questioning the validity of evolution because it's a "theory" doesn't do anything except represent your misunderstanding of the scientific definition of that word."
Despite you arrogance, you are wrong. I am fully aware of what the word "theory" means. A theory is not a fact, it is an educated guess.
In the end, one must have faith to belief in the theory of evolution, as there isn't any solid proof for it. It is, in the end, just a theory.
Clay: In the end, one must have faith to belief in the theory of evolution, as there isn't any solid proof for it. It is, in the end, just a theory.
Not to mention that it takes a great deal more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation. There is much less evidence for evolution.
Evolution is as much a religious belief as creationism or intelligent design.
James: "Evolution is as much a religious belief as creationism or intelligent design."
Precisely. In fact the same can be said regarding atheism. It also requires faith to believe that there isn't a God.
Show me scientific evidence against creation.
"Scientists have never found this "missing link", yet we are just supposed to accept on faith that it existed?"
No serious evolutionary biologist is going to confirm the existence of a "missing link." It's a misleading term that assumes that if evolution is correct, there should be fossils of a creature which is exactly half-monkey/half-human or something alone those lines. So no, there isn't a "missing link" as far as the popular use of that term is concerned, but many transitional fossils have been found, which display relatively small changes over long periods of time.
"Despite you arrogance, you are wrong. I am fully aware of what the word "theory" means. A theory is not a fact, it is an educated guess."
Evolution is both a scientific theory and a scientific fact. It is a fact in that generational variation within a species has been observed. Evolutionary theories are used to describe the methodology of the change, and these theories are tested and refined when they need to be.
Evolutionary biology is based on the scientific method, observable data, and testable explanations of the data. It is not religion, and it is ignorant for you to label it as such.
"Show me scientific evidence against -creation-."
...should be against -evolution-.
...or for creation, even.
anonymous,
I'm sure that you think that you are being clever by claiming that you don't need a "missing link" to support the theory of evolution. But, the fact remains that it is necessary to support Darwin's theory of evolution. Continuing to believe in his theory as fact, without supporting evidence is a matter of faith on your part, and not science.
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." - Stephen Jay Gould
"Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory." - Charles Darwin
“When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.” - Charles Darwin
"It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the invertebrate fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today." Dr. Michael Denton
"Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so." -Edmund Ronald Leach
"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." - David B. Kitts
now, i believe in God and Jesus, and i believe that God had a hand in the creation of life as we know it, but based on your arguments, couldn't creation be consitered a myth? all we have is the Bible. and keep in mind, these people had no idea what a cell is, let alone evolution.
so also based on what you're saying, evolution must be right, because we hear it all over the place.
look, this debate will never be solved. in the end we'll just believe what we believe and hope God doesn't doom those who were wrong.
by the way, the bacteria analogy was good. complements to anonymous
happy 2008!
Kevin,
"now, i believe in God and Jesus, and i believe that God had a hand in the creation of life as we know it, but based on your arguments, couldn't creation be consitered a myth? all we have is the Bible. and keep in mind, these people had no idea what a cell is, let alone evolution."
I'm with you in your Christian belief. I haven't questioned the fact that it takes faith to believe in what the Bible says about the existence of God and how he created the world and everything in it. So, I'm not coming at it in that direction.
"so also based on what you're saying, evolution must be right, because we hear it all over the place."
This doesn't follow and I don't think that that is necessarily true. My point is that it requires faith to believe in evolution as there isn't any concrete proof to substantiate its claims.
"look, this debate will never be solved"
Probably not on this side of the after live.
Happy 2008!
It's funny how alot of people will argue a point not even realizing the same arguements can be used against them.
For example people will say there is no prove of evolution. Yet at the same time, where is the prove to show the creation theory? Those people will say "it's the bible. it's your faith." Don't get me I am not trying to put down anybody's religion (cause you know me then you will know that is not what I do).
My point, though, is the reason the evolution/creation debate will always go in circles is cause of the "show me your prove" said by both sides.
simply me,
"It's funny how alot of people will argue a point not even realizing the same arguements can be used against them."
Have you actually read all of the comments here? It doesn't sound as if you have. I have consistently made the point that both sides require faith since, neither side has proof of the validity of their position. So, I am struggling to see what new point that you are trying to make. ; )
James, the quotes you posted are taken out of context. That was very sneaky of you.
If you look up what those scientists actually said, you'd have trouble proving that evolution is a religion unless you did some heavy splicing.
Post a Comment
<< Home