What are the Holes in Evolution?

[Inan3]

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.

You ask for evidence, I give you evidence. I have been given many sites to go and read and I have and never asked for it said in "your" own words. All the evidence you may be able to convey in your own words came from other people so there is nothing wrong in my just passing info along to you as you do to me.

 

[sfs]

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.

Pretty sweeping claims there; it's time to back them up. Please list a half dozen speciation events and provide their Gitt measures of information before and after the speciation (or just the change in information). Please be sure to include instances of polyploid plant speciation. And don't forget to demonstrate that the organisms have any information at all by Gitt's definition.

 

[TheOutsider]

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/

Ok, I'll agree that comparative embryology is not good evidence for evolution. Does that mean that the entire theory falls apart now?

 

[Inan3]

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".

Case in point these were not your own words.

 

[Inan3]

Ok, I'll agree that comparative embryology is not good evidence for evolution. Does that mean that the entire theory falls apart now?

But do you admit that it HAS been used in less than 30 years contrary to what you stated earlier?

 

[TheOutsider]

But do you admit that it HAS been used in less than 30 years contrary to what you stated earlier?

Yes, I see 2 textbooks that were made over 10 years ago that have it. I don't know why theywere still printing it. It was proven wrong a long time ago. But this isn't evidence that evolution is wrong. It just shows that some people's understanding of evolution is wrong.

 

[Inan3]

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

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/mechanisms06.html
"Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information. These breaks or replacements are the result of external effects such as radiation or chemical action. Every mutation is an "accident," and either damages the nucleotides making up the DNA or changes their locations. Most of the time, they cause so much damage and modification that the cell cannot repair them.
Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The changes effected by mutations can only be like those experienced by people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl: that is, death, disability, and freaks of nature…

The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states:

First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes;any random change in a highy ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.19"
​

 

[TheOutsider]

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"

Why would this be a problem for the TOE? They didn't know that the sternum existed until they found a new specimen. You are acting like it's a bad thing that theories change when new evidence is presented.

 

[sfs]

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.

This is the evidence against evolution? Wow. I had no idea it was so pathetic.

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

This page may have something to say about presentations of Lucy (although I doubt it), but it says nothing about the scientific evidence, which are the actual bones. The only "evidence" presented is bald assertions.

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[...]

I have no idea whether there was actually a problem with early DNA hybridization studies of humans, chimpanzees and gorillas. I also don't care, since we now have the complete genome sequence of two of them and the third is nearly finished. Whether there were experimental questions about the early work doesn't matter, since their conclusions have now been confirmed and greatly extended by direct sequencing.

Why on earth would you be looking at twenty year old data when we have vastly better data today, date which shows that this piece of "evidence against evolution" is nonsense?

 

[Inan3]

This is the evidence against evolution? Wow. I had no idea it was so pathetic.

No these are holes...Holes that bring reasonable doubt. Holes that show if it can happen once twice three times whatever it can continue to happen. Because unlike the picture that is painted of all the sainted scientists they are all just human and have the same iniquities as the next guy.

This page may have something to say about presentations of Lucy (although I doubt it), but it says nothing about the scientific evidence, which are the actual bones. The only "evidence" presented is bald assertions.

That's what I say

I have no idea whether there was actually a problem with early DNA hybridization studies of humans, chimpanzees and gorillas. I also don't care, since we now have the complete genome sequence of two of them and the third is nearly finished. Whether there were experimental questions about the early work doesn't matter, since their conclusions have now been confirmed and greatly extended by direct sequencing.

But that still does not prove we came from them only that we are similar

Why on earth would you be looking at twenty year old data when we have vastly better data today, date which shows that this piece of "evidence against evolution" is nonsense?

Why? because I don't trust these "evidences", that's why. No one has shown me that they are true evidences they just say they are. I'm sorry that's not enough for me. I would rather believe God and His account. On top of that are you saying you NEVER look at any evidence that is that old?

 

[Inan3]

Why would this be a problem for the TOE? They didn't know that the sternum existed until they found a new specimen. You are acting like it's a bad thing that theories change when new evidence is presented.

I'm giving holes.

 

[Inan3]

This is the evidence against evolution? Wow. I had no idea it was so pathetic.

It's enough to keep me a skeptic.

 

[Split Rock]

[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.

You are ignoring the obvious fact that Archaeopteryx has the skeleton of a small theropod dinosaur, rather than a bird. Here is a comparison between the skeleton of Archaeopteryx, Comsognathus and a modern bird. Archaeopteryx has a long tail, jaws and teeth, pelvus, and claws like that of a theropod, not like a modern bird. http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/tutorials/origin_and_early_evolution_birds

 

[TheOutsider]

I'm giving holes.

Not exactly gaping holes, are they? They are just tiny spots where our understanding was wrong. You showed that comparative embryology is wrong (which most scientists agree with you), gave old data about the similarities between humans and other apes, and that we didn't find a full specimen of Archaeopteryx until recently. They in no way, shape, or form disprove the TOE. We have seen speciation, we have a fossil record to show that life has gone from simple to complex, we have seen the genetic similarities between humans and other apes. What more do you want, oh Doubting Thomas?

 

[Inan3]

Not exactly gaping holes, are they? They are just tiny spots where our understanding was wrong. You showed that comparative embryology is wrong (which most scientists agree with you), gave old data about the similarities between humans and other apes, and that we didn't find a full specimen of Archaeopteryx until recently. They in no way, shape, or form disprove the TOE. We have seen speciation, we have a fossil record to show that life has gone from simple to complex, we have seen the genetic similarities between humans and other apes. What more do you want, oh Doubting Thomas?

It has been claimed that you have seen speciation and a fossil record but show me the beef. Not some article that is biased to put down creationism but show me the actual evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

It would be interesting if you could at least specify how this evidence falsifies the theory.

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

Just looking at the bones by themselves it is quite obvious to the trained eye that Lucy is intermediate. As the golf instructor in "Happy Gilmore" said, ''It's all in the hips." Lucy has a very human like pelvis, and it is quite obvious in those photos.

The Yale DNA Hybridization Scandal: Introduction

As sfs suggests, you should try and keep up with the latest science. Both the human and chimp genomes are greater than 99% complete. Humans and chimps differ by 2% within DNA that they inherited from their common ancestor and they differ by 5% overall which includes DNA that has either been added or taken away since the lineages diverged. This is exactly what we would expect given the mutation rate and time since divergence. Thanks for highlighting such a strong piece of evidence in favor of Evolution.

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.

Haeckel's theory of Ontology recapitulating Phylogeny was never a part of the theory of evolution. Whether or not his drawings were faked says nothing to the fact that all vertebrates share common ancestry. There have been faked artefacts claimed to have been from biblical events, but no one uses this as proof that the Bible is incorrect. The only hole that you have shone light on was the innaccuracy of Haeckel's drawings which have been known for quite a long time. Also, no scientist bases their acceptance of Evolution on these drawings.

 

[TheOutsider]

It has been claimed that you have seen speciation and a fossil record but show me the beef. Not some article that is biased to put down creationism but show me the actual evidence.

I doubt that there is any evidence in the world that you will accept at this point. You have gotten it into your head that anything that says evolution is real is automatically wrong. You prejudge any evidence we could possibly give you. There is no point in me even trying anymore.

 

[Split Rock]

Why? because I don't trust these "evidences", that's why. No one has shown me that they are true evidences they just say they are. I'm sorry that's not enough for me. I would rather believe God and His account. On top of that are you saying you NEVER look at any evidence that is that old?

You would rather believe an account written, translated and interpreted by MAN which only claims to be the Word of God.

If you want to see the evidence, buy a subscription to Nature or Science (or go to the library), or visit your local Natural History Museum. The evidence is available to the public, it is not being hidden.

 

[Split Rock]

I'm giving holes.

You are not providing "holes." You are nitpicking about this of that other fossil, or old evidence from 20 years ago which was found to be questionable. Even if Archaeopteryx was not a transitional (which it is) how does that falsify evolution? If an experiment from 20 years ago was inappropriate, how does that falsify evolution?

Where is the evidence that falsifies the theory of evolution?

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

It has been very difficult to root the entire tree of life. This is perhaps the only "true" hole that does exist in the theory. The problem is in identifying which differences are due to horizontal gene transfer and vertical gene transfer, or if these distinctions can even be used to root the entire tree. Scientists are still trying to describe a genetic common ancestor for prokaryotes and eukaryotes. However, they have had no problems describing a common ancestor between humans and chimps.

The problem is that this article does nothing to refute the evidence supporting common ancestry of all apes (including humans), all primates, all mammals, and all vertebrates. Thes evolutionary distances are denied by creationists, and the evidence you have presented does not support your case.

[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.

There are many, many misconceptions in this article. First, it was not flight first, then feathers. Recent fossil finds include non-flying dinosaurs with feathers. Many creationists forget the first function that feathers serve in birds--insulation. Feathers also play an important role in courtship rituals. Feathers could have played the same roles in these non-flying feathered dinosaurs.

Secondly, the features that Archaeopteryx does not share with modern birds it does share with dinosaurs. That's right, Archie has both dinosaur not found in birds and bird features not found in non-avian dinosaurs. Archie is, by definition, an intermediate fossil.

Does the human embryo go through stages of evolution?

No, it goes through stages of development. However, some of these stages do reflect human ancestry. For example, the human embryo has a tail.

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.

While it is unfortunate that the idea persists, the idea was never a part of the theory of evolution.

The human embryo is human from the moment of conception, and shows no evidence of evolution.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/gillslits.html

I didn't know that humans were single celled organisms.

The human embryo is also a primate from the moment of conception, hence the tail.

The human embryo is also a vertebrate just like fish, hence the pharyngeal pouches that form the larynx in terrestrial vertebrates and the gill arches in fish.

The human embryo is also a derived reptile (aka mammal), so the embryo starts with three jaw bones, two of which move into the middle ear just as we see in the transitional fossil series in the fossil record.

Does embryonic development directly recapitulate the evolution of it's ancestors? Absolutely not. Does embryonic development REFLECT the evolution of it's ancestors? Absolutely YES!!