The Central Flaw of Evolution

On the *clever* phrase of "god of the gaps," which makes Darwinists giggle so very much, they overlook their own gaps:

1. Gaps in the Fossils
They have been promising to fill in all those gaps in the fossils since Darwin turned to atheism because his cockamamie idea *explained* (he thought) the elegant design of the biosphere.

2. Gaps in science
Likewise, Darwin's Faithful have been claiming that macroevolution ("fact, fact, fact") is sustained by a wide range of scientific research, with of course much more to come. They don't have all the answers YET, but by golly, they'll discover them, you betcha. Just need a few more hundred million dollars in government grants for that all important *research*.

3. Gaps in integrity
Icons of Evolution, Science or Myth; Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong by Jonathan Wells is just one book which documents the 150 years of fraud in the name of evolutionary science. Hegel's drawings of embryos is one of the most pervasive frauds in the history of science. It was exposed immediately, and Hegel was convicted of fraud in a trial, but still university and high school biology books parroted his fraud until as recently as the year 2000.

4. Gaps in decency
One of Darwin's most vocal and well known advocates is Richard Dawkins, who said "Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is either ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked." His vile indecency exemplifies the tenor and character of virtually any discussion of Darwinism, anywhere. The indecent remarks of Darwin's Faithful are anti-intelligent and anti-scientific, but his Faithful are powerless to stop being hateful and condescending.

I invite the many thoughtful and mature individuals posting here to ponder the many other gaps of the evolutionary paradigm, and add your own observations here. They will absolutely infuriate Darwin's Faithful, who should instead modify their conduct and condescension, but cannot and will not.

 

Then you should have no problem disclosing your source/s.
Link/s?

 

The gap I'm thinking of isn't on your list.
Modify that.

 

Which is why I explicitly defined it in my original reply. Words frequently have several meanings, so before you say that evolution is not a fact you should be specific about which definition you are referring to.

You're conflating evolution with common descent, which is not a fact, but is the theory which best explains the diversity of life we see on this planet.

Which is why he titled his book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection".

You can believe what you want. Supporting that belief is another matter.

 

Here's a few sites: http://www.intelligentdesign.org/
http://www.discovery.org/id/
http://www.evolutionnews.org/

I would recommend reading one of their books, one great read is, "Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, by Stephen C. Meyer"

 

I should have, but I just assumed you were referring to Darwinism.
Evolution and common descent need not be the same thing of course, but is a prediction of Darwinian evolution.

 

No, your idea is not even slightly good enough. We can find experiments that appear to support ("prove" in your terminology) theories that are in fact false. Theores can look just great until someone finds the flaw. We have examples such as the theory that all crows are black. We can find numerous confirming instances, but that does not prove that all crows are black. This is a REAL issue. To gain acceptance, theories must be under constant and creative assault. And, NO theory ever attains a position of being considered unassailable - something that would result if there were proof.

New species are arising all the time. We can even watch it happen in a lab environment. This notion that there are no new species arising is absolute nonsense, believed only by those who refuse to look.

There is absolutely nothing magical about macro evolution. New species arise by numerous small changes in a population that has become divided by any one of several factors - geography, for example. Eventually procreation between the two populations is no longer possible - the definition of speciation. Small changes will continue and the populations will continue to diverge. Adding large amounts of time allows for changes to addup.

The real point here is that there is no barrier to the amount of change that can take place. There is nothing to support the notion that changes can not lead to speciation.

 

It's just a fact that ID has no scientific hypothises or theories. They do not use scientific method.

That doesn't imply that they are stupid. It's just that ID does not use scientific method.

Scientific method has no possibility of addressing ANYTHING about god. For example, if you say god did something, there is absolutely no way for science to object.

If you say god makes us think there is gravity by moving all objects to match what we see, science can not refute that. Science can provide an alternative answer, but that isn't a refutation, since god is all powerful and can do literally anything.

It is true that science can not accept religious precepts, but it is just as true that science can not deny them. Religion and science are two separate realms. And ID is very clearly in the religious realm.

 

"God of the gaps" is more general.

It refers to the propensity to assign to god anything we don't understand - the gaps in human knowledge.

 

There is no barrier to stop change over time at the species level. The idea that change over time is somehow constrained in this way is refuted over and over and over again.

If you doubt that, please cite or describe what that barrier could possibly be.

Also, refer to section 5.0 of this doc to see a list and description of speciation events witnessed under lab conditions.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

Do you know how tired that argument is? Of course their are gaps in the fossil record. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have every possible transition fossil, but you know what, we don't have to! We humans are very good at filling in gaps. Just look at this picture:



See, we don't need the whole picture to figure out what it is.

If you think anyone has all the answers, you are fooling yourself.

So who discovered and exposed the fraud? Creationists? No, scientists.

So whoever doesn't believe in evolution either doesn't understand, doesn't have the capacity to understand, is incapable of logical thought or is purposely being obtuse for nefarious reasons. Hmm... that sounds about right.

I invite anyone who is interested in the topic of evolution to read about it. Read everything you can, the pros, the cons, and everything in between. Don't take any one person's word for it. Remember this though, evolution is not incompatible with God, it just doesn't require a God. Anyway, who are we to decide how God created the multitudes of life on Earth?

 

ID folks search for structures they believe are hard to explain as a result of evolution - due to complexity or because of not finding precursors, or whatever. These they label as having been designed by god.

The "gap" I referred to is the gap in understanding how their structure could have evolved. That is, we can all look at some structures and not know how they came about - a gap in our understanding.

If that gap is large "enough", they say, "God did it."

Of course, there is no way to measure "enough", as what is being measured is a hole in our understanding.

In science, when we don't know how something happened we say, "I don't know how that happened."

I'm sorry if that sounds to you like god got excluded, but science doesn't have a way to turn human ignorance into proof that God took some specific action.

In fact, on a religious level I find it outrageous that we could consider our own ignorance so fabulously important that it proves what god does.

Humans are far better off, I think, if when we don't know something, we admit the truth - that we don't know.

 

The game you play doesn’t work on me.

 

You mean the "I see your evidence. I SPIT on your evidence. I fart in your evidence's general direction" game? Why don't you want to play, Cosmo? Don't you like Monty Python?

 

I was thinking Benny Hill.

 

Oh my! You do find them crass, don't you?

 

Ok, i'll look at this. Let's use the scientific method to examine your hypothetical 'theory'.

Hypothesis: All crows are black.
Observation: Some have observed crows that are not black, & this has been documented.
Facts & evidence: http://www.birds.cornell.edu/crows/whitecrows.htm
Analysis & conclusion: All crows are not black. The hypothesis is proven false.

Now, let us correlate this process to the ToE.

Hypothesis: All living things have a common ancestor, & are descended from simpler forms, i.e., the 'macro' theory of evolution.
Observation & experimentation: NO changes in the genetic structure have been observed, nor is there any mechanism by which an organism can be forced to depart from the parameters of their basic genetic structure. NO experiment has been able to demonstrate the alleged phenomenon of increasing complexity, added chromosomes, added genes, & major alterations to the genetic structure. Millions of experiments have been attempted to prove this theory, but none have been able to overcome the strict confines of the genetic code. NOT ONCE has there been ANY experiment that could demonstrate the basic claims of the macro ToE.
Analysis & conclusion: As there is no evidence to support this theory, and every attempt to demonstrate this process has failed, we are forced to accept that the theory is flawed. Perhaps someday, there will be a mechanism defined, or some other process by which the alleged changes in the basic genetic structure can be observed, but until then, the theory is flawed. It does not work. We cannot definitively DISPROVE this theory, as the lack of current evidence cannot preclude the impossibility of future evidence. But that is speculative, & is not subject to scientific methodology.

This has been my central argument in this thread. Show me ONE example of macroevolution. ONE real, observable, repeatable test of this alleged phenomenon, that allows a departure from the confines of the genetic code. Show me HOW this can happen, Merely asserting it DID happen is science by decree. It does not have any scientific evidence to back it.

Now, i will also address some of your other statements:
'New species are arising all the time'.
This is false. Speciation is a fuzzy definition process, that is filled with logical & scientific holes. It is used to imply macro evolution, when it only describes micro.. IOW, many species are merely simple variation WITHIN their own genetic structure.. they are not different, genetically. You can follow the mtDNA in them, & they obviously have a common ancestor, even though there are some morphological differences. A dog & wolf are examples. They have proven evidence of descendancy, & they are defined as 'different species', but this does not prove macro ToE.. it only DEMONSTRATES microevolution. You can breed fruit flies until some generations reach reproductive isolation, but they are still fruit flies, with the same genetic structure. They have not 'evolved' into something else. You actually have limited their genetic choices, & isolated them until they no longer have the variability of the parent species. This appears to be the case with organisms in the wild, as well. Tigers & lions. Horses & donkeys. Many 'species' have become reproductively isolated until they have little resemblance to any cousin species. But this 'speciation' does not prove macroevolution. It is merely used as a definitional dodge to 'prove' macroevolution by definition. It is again a false correlation, to say that the proven observation of the ancestry of dogs & wolves implies that lizards came from fish, or birds from reptiles. There is NOTHING linking them, genetically. There is no mtDNA chain, or any observable, repeatable mechanism that can force the departure from the parameters of the basic genetic structure.

There is no evidence that the accumulated changes that you hypothesize can happen, much less did happen. That is a belief system, only, with no empirical basis. You only falsely correlate the reproductive isolation WITHIN a genetic structure, & project it as a universal process on all living things. This is flawed, scientifically. It cannot be observed or forced, in any setting. Just because some organisms can become so distant from the parent species that they no longer can reproduce with cousin species, does not compel a conclusion that all living things can change into something else, or that they did, somehow, over millions of years.

I addressed this in the discussion about canids, which occurred many pages back in this thread. 'Speciation' is a bit of circular reasoning, using the definitions to prove the premise. But unless & until you can show REAL speciation.. with changes to the basic genetic structure... added genes, chromosomes, etc, all you have is microevolution, or simple variability. You have only proved that which has been settled science for millennia. Here is how 'speciation' is mistakenly used as a proof of macroevolution:

1. The ToE posits that new species arise all the time, via the process of natural selection.
2. Any variants that look different, and/or cannot reproduce are defined as 'new species'.
3. Therefore, these new species, by definition, prove the ToE.

Can you not see the circular reasoning in this? We have NOT observed any structural changes in the genome, or added chromosomes, or increasing complexity.. we ONLY observe variation within the genetic structure, with the added phenomenon of reproductive isolation. But mere reproductive isolation does NOT prove macroevolution, except by definition & decree. Logically & scientifically, they are merely variants within the same genetic structure. They are cousin species, only.

 

No, i do not go through & read every link that is presented. I don't debate links. You can present your own arguments, with a link to back it, but merely posting links is a dodge. It is not a discussion.

Your correlation between human dna relationship & apes is absurd. You actually believe that the dna is so similar it proves descendancy? The mtDNA is COMPLETELY different! Humans have the same markers in their mtDNA, that proves a common mother. The same is true with canids, equids, & many other family lines. But there is NO evidence of descendancy between differing mtDNA lines. Apes are different. They are not the same as human. The genes are different, the mtDNA is different, and they have different genes & traits across the board. The chromosomes are different. There is NOTHING linking humans & apes other than imagination.. .just because humans have the most morphological similarity to apes does NOT prove descendancy. That is speculation & belief.

This is a scientific discussion, in a scientific thread, in a science subforum. The call is for evidence for a theory, not opinions, or faith in 'really smart people.' If you do not know the subject well enough to discuss it intelligently, fine. I understand that. But how can you dismiss others who do, or assume they operate under the same conditions as you?

??
I don't get this. You admit you don't know the subject, yet are 'debating' here to persuade others? Of what? Your own ignorance? You have nothing empirical to offer, yet presume to persuade others with assertion, logical fallacies, & other deflecting tactics? Why not just educate yourself, if you wish to debate this issue? But to merely carry the water for others you BELIEVE in, smacks of propaganda, not reasoned debate. I know a great many people who are VERY well educated on this subject. I consider myself a well informed layman, & a student of science, for my whole life. Knowledge is not restricted to institutions. I am a beneficiary of the human knowledge base, & have spent much of my life building upon this base. Any subject can be learned, if you have the tools, the time, & the inclination.

No, you seem to play the 'assert & run' game.. i'm calling for the empirical evidence game. You have provided deflections & distractions, not anything pertinent to the thread. Unless & until you provide actual evidence for the theory you zealously defend, you are employing logical fallacies & propaganda, not science, to this discussion.

 

Ok.Cannot be observed or repeated.Therefore not scientific.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

 

Tell me, have you actually done any true scientific research on the subject? Have you done any research into genetics, physiology and the fossil record yourself and come to the conclusion that evolution is false or are you a total hypocrite and have done what the rest of us have, and read what other people have written and chose to believe it to be true because it makes sense to you?

You said "I am not asking for '4 million' papers that provide evidence for evolution, but one. Give me one," so I do and when I show you a paper that proves my point, you dismiss it as just a link and say I need to just show you the evidence. It seems ;you keep moving the goal post. I had to assume that you wanted first hand evidence, which I cannot provide since I am not a scientist. I have, however, studied biology in college and try to keep up with current discoveries as much as I can. I don't pretend to be something I am not, however.

You seem to have no concept of scientific consensus. That is strange because you claim you know about the scientific method, but yet you dismiss one of its foundations as an appeal to authority. At least I admit my own ignorance and not try to pretend I am something I am not.

 

1. Knowledge is free, for those who seek it. You do not have to personally verify every fact to build upon the human knowledge base.
2. Dismissing my arguments based on what seems to be projection on your part is not a rebuttal. I do know the issues, & can discuss them intelligently.
3. Implying that one must be a Certified, Authorized geneticist, physiologist, environmentalist, or psychologist in order to follow facts & reason is flawed, & is another logical fallacy. Reason can be followed. Facts can be ascertained & verified. Knowledge is not obscure & mysterious, but is open & available, for those who seek it. One not need have accreditation from some institution to be able to follow & understand (or even discover) scientific concepts.
4. You have not provided 'one' evidence... just implied there are 4 millions papers out there that prove the ToE. Links are not evidence. They can POINT to evidence, for others to examine, but merely posting a link is not an argument or evidence. If you are providing arguments & facts, present them. You can post a link as a source, but a link is not evidence.
5. Consensus is not the issue. Scientific evidence & proof is what the discussion is about. Beliefs of the majority are irrelevant, to an empirical study.
6. The goal post has not moved, from my side. I am calling for empirical evidence, that can be examined & reviewed by intelligent human beings, to determine if the plausibility of a theory has any empirical basis.

If you believe this is impossible for mere mortals to understand, & that only the elite 'really smart people' in the advanced educated classes are capable of understanding the mysteries of the universe, then you are dragging us back to the dark ages, where Truth is declared, & enforced by an aristocratic elite. That is not what the Age of Reason was about. That is not what the Scientific Revolution was about. Truth is open & transparent, whether we see it or not. It can be, & has been open to any who seek it, regardless of their class or status in the World of Man.

It is not that complex. Even genetics, which is very technical & carries a lot of techno specific language with it can be understood in the basics. It is taught in Bio 101. IF there is something that is very complex, & the hearers are told to 'trust us, we smart people understand it', but a clear explanation cannot be made, that is obfuscation, not enlightenment.

 

As a reminder, i presented a study way back in post #113 that supports my arguments here.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=442211&page=12&p=1065828058#post1065828058

This was a study about canids. Here is a brief summary of what i gleaned from the study:

1. All of the variety of dogs are recent developments, less than 200 yrs old.
2. Fact: Selection acts on EXISTING variability. It is not created on the fly, & is assumed to take thousands or millions of years to come about.
3. ALL of this variability EXISTED in the ancestral wolf/parent.
4. The recent time for the variety of dog breeds is incongruent with the assumption of 'millions' or even thousands of years of evolution, to generate such variety.

So ALL of the domestic dogs we have are the result of variability ALREADY PRESENT in the parent dogs. The NARROWING of these traits is the breeding, or 'selection' process, by which certain traits are chosen & others rejected. What breeding, or selection, does is LIMIT the variability, & provide fewer traits for the child species. In some species, you even get reproductive isolation, such as with equids & felidae. But this is not seen with canids, for some unknown reason.

The only FACTS we can conclude about canids, is that an ancestor of uncertain nature, from an uncertain time period, produced all the variability of canids we see today. Dogs, wolves, coyotes, foxes.. all the different canid species that we can follow the mtDNA line in prove common descendancy. They have 'evolved' into what we see today. Some traits or subspecies have been lost. But there is NO WAY to conclude any other descendancy or ancestry based on scientific facts. Where did the canid ancestor come from? Nobody knows. Canids appears abruptly in the fossil record, & even if you assume ancient dates, there is no plausible predecessor for the canid family. In the thousands of years the canids have roamed the earth, many sub species have vanished, like the dire wolf. ALL of the dog variants we see today are recent.. within the last 200 yrs. And ALL of that variability was already present, from the parent species. We do not see more variability being created on the fly, or new traits suddenly appearing & changing the gene pool of any dog breeds. This brings up some questions:

1. Where did all the existing variability come from, in domestic dogs? It did not 'evolve' slowly, but was already present in the parent stock.
2. Why would all this variability be present, in the parent stock? What selective pressures compiled this abundance of variability, to be released slowly over centuries of breeding?
3. How do these kinds of traits become available? What 'creates' them? How would 'mutation' form millions of possibilities within the parent stock, yet not employ them until future generations? These were not 'environmental' pressures, or any kind of selective pressures, but thousands of traits ALREADY PRESENT in the parent stock.
4. Canids are not 'evolving', in the darwinian, macro sense, but DEVOLVING. Less variability is present in the child species, not more. There are no 'new' traits being created, but fewer ones made available as breeding or natural selection limits the undesired traits. IOW, traits are lost, not gained.

If you read through this study, or many other similar ones involving genetics, you can see the rationale of these arguments. Science is disproving the ToE, not proving it. Genetics is problematic for macroevolution.. we can follow the mtDNA, & see when real ancestry is happening. But there is NO evidence of anything changing from within its basic genetic structure. That is an imagined construct, with no empirical basis.

 

You took the words right out of my mouth.

 

Unless & until you provide actual evidence that refutes the theory you zealously attack, you are employing logical fallacies & propaganda, not science, to this discussion.

~fini~

 

What were you saying about making assertions without backing them up? Human and chimp mtDNA are so similar, they are nearly indistinguishable.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01734101