What are the Holes in Evolution?

[Loudmouth]

There are several other threads with similar focus, but it is always nice to start fresh once in a while.

It has been argued that there are holes in the theory of evolution. I, and others, would like to hear what these holes are?

Is it a lack of evidence? This would seem to be a trivial matter since an absense of evidence is not evidence of absence. A true hole in any scientific theory is evidence that is contradictory to what a theory predicts. Is there any evidence like this?

 

[TheOutsider]

*puts on Creationist cap*
The theory of evolution disagrees with scripture, therefore it is wrong.
*takes off cap*
Ouch! That always gives me a headache.

 

[dukeofhazzard]

I don't know of any holes, so to speak. I used to think that there was no way that all of what exists could have evolved -- but that was before I really grasped how long a billion years is (not that I even REALLY grasp that now, but I'm closer ) much less 4 billion years.

 

[RichardT]

You're asking whether there are "holes in the theory" yet you tell us that we can't discuss absence of evidence?

 

[Inan3]

There are several other threads with similar focus, but it is always nice to start fresh once in a while.

It has been argued that there are holes in the theory of evolution. I, and others, would like to hear what these holes are?

Is it a lack of evidence? This would seem to be a trivial matter since an absense of evidence is not evidence of absence. A true hole in any scientific theory is evidence that is contradictory to what a theory predicts. Is there any evidence like this?

But I can give you more. Not that you will believe any of it but it is as much evidence as you give to me. Only this evidence is against ToE.


Lucy
http://www.omniology.com/LucySkeletons.html



The Yale DNA Hybridization Scandal: Introduction
"The problems became quickly apparent -- namely, that there was a far wider scatter of values than Sibley and Ahlquist had published, and this was just 1/8 of their data, and there was no human-chimp link. For example, Sibley and Ahlquist had published that the human-chimp experiments invariably ranged between delta-T = 1.2 to 2.3. But in our small sample we had experiments where the delta-T for human-chimp was calculable as -0.2 and 2.6, well outside the range they had reported. This also raised the issue of how Britten could possibly have failed to notice it -- unless he himself had never looked at it very carefully. Shortly thereafter, when they published their 1987 paper with a table listing experiment numbers alongside values, it became clear that about 60% of the numbers matched our calculations, and about 40% did not. Our calculation of the values from the data was clearly lacking something, although we did it as they described, and it was perfect over half the time. Obviously there was something significant missing from their Materials and Methods. And more importantly, the numbers we had in no way resolved the trichotomy. We wrote to the authors, but received no reply for several weeks. "
http://digilander.libero.it/avifauna/classificazione/sequence6.htm



German scientist Ernst Haeckel's Fraud
"Despite the fact that Haeckel’s embryo drawings have long since been exposed as fraudulent, the profoundly dishonest pro-evolution movement is, astonishingly, STILL presenting his artwork as "proof" of Darwin’s theory. Ironically, no one has been more vigorous in exposing this travesty than Dr. Gould, the world’s staunchest proponent of Darwin’s great myth. He wrote:

Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology (p. 44)….Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts (p. 45).

Prof. Gould then made this absolutely startling admission:

…[W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, IF NOT A MAJORITY, of modern textbooks! (p. 45, emphasis added)He then goes on to quote a colleague, Michael Richardson of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, who stated, "I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically" (p. 45).

These facts are both frightening and heartening. They are frightening because they demonstrate the colossal dishonesty of the evolutionary movement, as well as the widespread nature of this dishonesty. However, it is heartening to know that even a militant anti-Creationist such as Dr. Gould would admit in the pages of a respected journal like Natural History that one of the major pieces of evidence for evolution is not only fraudulent, but is shamefully being propagated among the world’s youth to this very day. With hope, this might serve as a wake-up call for people who have been deceived into believing Darwin’s theory as scientific fact beyond the scope of doubt or question."
http://www.creationism.org/caesar/haeckel.htm

Just a few holes.

 

[Atheuz]

You're asking whether there are "holes in the theory" yet you tell us that we can't discuss absence of evidence?

Theory of Gravity has less evidence than Evolution. Probably not a good idea to go there.

 

[TheOutsider]

Nobody has used Haeckel's drawings in over 30 years. It was "evolutionists" that disproved his ideas, not Creationists.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html

 

[coyoteBR]

Ok, about the lack of evidence, I could recomend the book "The World Without Us".
The author, forgot his name, gaves several examples of evolution in action. One that is happening today:
Chernobyl.

We barelly can keep people away from Chernobyl poisoned lands, let alone animals. And birds, deers and the like started to fill the region, for no other reason than that was their house.
Of course they die early. Scientists notice most migratory birds of the area now don't survive the trip, and can't make it back to Russia.
But the amazing thing is, they are maturing way faster. Nature, says the author, seems to try to push a mega quantity of birds in the hope some ones develop mutations to survive the hostile enviroment.

The book has other great examples, too. A worth reading

 

[TheOutsider]

It was "evolutionists" that disproved his ideas, not Creationists.

I will note that this directly disproves your quote from the other thread.

you guys really don't want independent thinking or critical thinking what you want is duplicates of yourselves.

We don't mind people disagreeing with us as long as you have objective evidence to back up your claims. Put up the evidence and you will change all of our minds.

 

[LittleNipper]

Aside from the fact that there appears to have once been a wider variety of animals, and also a failure upon evolutionists for not mentioning the fact that reptiles continue to grow larger throughout their lifetime. No one really knows if this applied to dinosaurs. There is also the simple realization that in 4000 plus years of recorded history, there is never any mention of any specie change. There is not any indication that anyone observed changes of any sort in the animal population that would indicate a shift to some new specie, EVER!

 

[LittleNipper]

Aside from the fact that there appears to have once been a wider variety of animals, and also a failure upon evolutionists for not mentioning the fact that reptiles continue to grow larger throughout their lifetime. No one really knows if this applied to dinosaurs. There is also the simple realization that in 4000 plus years of recorded history, there is never any mention of any specie change. Ther is not any indication that anyone observed changes of any sort in the animal population that would indicate a shift to some new specie, EVER!

 

[TheOutsider]

There is also the simple realization that in 4000 plus years of recorded history, there is never any mention of any specie change. Ther is not any indication that anyone observed changes of any sort in the animal population that would indicate a shift to some new specie, EVER!

Are you kidding me? Speciation has been shown to happen in the lab numerous times. I'll give fruit flies as just one example of a new species.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cg...0.1086/338370&erFrom=2392568407353087184Guest
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Also, it's "species" not "specie".

 

[Phred]

Aside from the fact that there appears to have once been a wider variety of animals,

Over millions of years.

and also a failure upon evolutionists for not mentioning the fact that reptiles continue to grow larger throughout their lifetime. No one really knows if this applied to dinosaurs.

Basically irrelevant.

There is also the simple realization that in 4000 plus years of recorded history, there is never any mention of any specie change. There is not any indication that anyone observed changes of any sort in the animal population that would indicate a shift to some new specie, EVER!

Except when we observe it taking place. But, of course, you're talking about the creationist strawman of species change. So of course that wouldn't be observed since it can't happen. It's not possible. Dogs don't change into Buicks.

 

[Inan3]

Nobody has used Haeckel's drawings in over 30 years. It was "evolutionists" that disproved his ideas, not Creationists.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html

The Tree of Life Collapsing
"In the 1990s, research into the genetic codes of living things worsened the quandary faced by the theory of evolution in this regard. In these experiments, instead of the earlier comparisons that were limited to protein sequences, "ribosomal RNA" (rRNA) sequences were compared. From these findings, evolutionist scientists sought to establish an "evolutionary tree." However, they were disappointed by the results.

According to a 1999 article by French biologists Hervé Philippe and Patrick Forterre, "with more and more sequences available, it turned out that most protein phylogenies contradict each other as well as the rRNA tree."301

Besides rRNA comparisons, the DNA codes in the genes of living things were also compared, but the results have been the opposite of the "tree of life" presupposed by evolution. Molecular biologists James A. Lake, Ravi Jain and Maria C. Rivera elaborated on this in an article in 1999:

…cientists started analyzing a variety of genes from different organisms and found that their relationship to each other contradicted the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis alone.302"​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Archaeopteryx Misconception[/FONT]

In response to the question whether there is any fossil evidence for "reptile-bird evolution," evolutionists pronounce the name of one single creature. This is the fossil of a bird called Archaeopteryx, one of the most widely known so-called transitional forms among the very few that evolutionists still defend.
Archaeopteryx, the so-called ancestor of modern birds according to evolutionists, lived approximately 150 million years ago. The theory holds that some small dinosaurs, such as Velociraptors or Dromaeosaurs, evolved by acquiring wings and then starting to fly. Thus, Archaeopteryx is assumed to be a transitional form that branched off from its dinosaur ancestors and started to fly for the first time.
However, the latest studies of Archaeopteryx fossils indicate that this explanation lacks any scientific foundation. This is absolutely not a transitional form, but an extinct species of bird, having some insignificant differences from modern birds.




Does the human embryo go through stages of evolution?

Quick-read this article:
The idea that the human embryo retraces the stages of evolution has been exposed as false for many years. Yet the idea persists. The human embryo is human from the moment of conception, and shows no evidence of evolution.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/gillslits.html

 

[Inan3]

Theory of Gravity has less evidence than Evolution. Probably not a good idea to go there.

What is it you want evidence or you have no evidence? What ever argument fits you use it.

 

[RichardT]

There is not any indication that anyone observed changes of any sort in the animal population that would indicate a shift to some new specie, EVER!

Actually, speciation is observed today, but it is always a loss of meaningful information (under Gitt's measurements), it has also never been observed to happen in humans.

 

[TheOutsider]

Does the human embryo go through stages of evolution?

Quick-read this article:
The idea that the human embryo retraces the stages of evolution has been exposed as false for many years. Yet the idea persists. The human embryo is human from the moment of conception, and shows no evidence of evolution.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/gillslits.html

You already used that argument once and like I said, no one has used those drawings in the last 30 years. It was proven wrong by "evolutionists", not Creationists.

Also, why can't you argue with your own words? You are just copying-and-pasting from other sites. It would be a good way to show us that you understand your arguments if you could paraphrase them instead of using other peoples' words.

 

[TheOutsider]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Archaeopteryx Misconception[/FONT]

In response to the question whether there is any fossil evidence for "reptile-bird evolution," evolutionists pronounce the name of one single creature. This is the fossil of a bird called Archaeopteryx, one of the most widely known so-called transitional forms among the very few that evolutionists still defend.
Archaeopteryx, the so-called ancestor of modern birds according to evolutionists, lived approximately 150 million years ago. The theory holds that some small dinosaurs, such as Velociraptors or Dromaeosaurs, evolved by acquiring wings and then starting to fly. Thus, Archaeopteryx is assumed to be a transitional form that branched off from its dinosaur ancestors and started to fly for the first time.
However, the latest studies of Archaeopteryx fossils indicate that this explanation lacks any scientific foundation. This is absolutely not a transitional form, but an extinct species of bird, having some insignificant differences from modern birds.

For starters, you can tell us exactly why Archaeopteryx is not a good example of a transitional fossil.

 

[Inan3]

Nobody has used Haeckel's drawings in over 30 years. It was "evolutionists" that disproved his ideas, not Creationists.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html

Why pretend that textbooks have not gone well beyond the evidence in promoting Darwin's theory?
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2007/04/20/lstrongglemgtextbook_watch_l_emg_why_pre

http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...ond-the-evidence-in-promoting-darwins-theory/

 

[Inan3]

For starters, you can tell us exactly why Archaeopteryx is not a good example of a transitional fossil.

Sorry I neglected to give you the site info so you can read it for yourself.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_06.html
"The thesis that Archaeopteryx was a "half-bird" that could not fly perfectly was popular among evolutionist circles until not long ago. The absence of a sternum (breastbone) in this creature was held up as the most important evidence that this bird could not fly properly. (The sternum is a bone found under the thorax to which the muscles required for flight are attached. In our day, this breastbone is observed in all flying and non-flying birds, and even in bats, a flying mammal which belongs to a very different family.) However, the seventh Archaeopteryx fossil, which was found in 1992, disproved this argument. The reason was that in this recently discovered fossil, the breastbone that was long assumed by evolutionists to be missing was discovered to have existed after all. This fossil was described in the journal Nature as follows:

The recently discovered seventh specimen of the Archaeopteryx preserves a partial, rectangular sternum, long suspected but never previously documented. This attests to its strong flight muscles, but its capacity for long flights is questionable.124"