proving evolution as just a "theory"

[HitchSlap]

I have written a paper that debunks the theory of evolution, and does so by using logical argument and scientific observations. It contains no religious references, but draws an end conclusion that evolution should be different than what we see, and that evolution is guided by some form of higher intelligence. Granted, it’s not proof of God for fact, but; it is one of the closest proofs I’m aware of that uses only science and logic to prove the existence of some form of higher power in life that guides and controls it.



The paper is at http://www.GHart.net/Evolution_Theory.pdf . I would greatly appreciate it if you would read it over, and provide any feedback that might improve upon it. My writing style is a not “professional”, … I’m not a writer. That’s where I was hoping you or a friend from your Church could help me.


Thank you :> )

You deliberately misrepresent what a scientific theory is on your first page. I didn’t bother reading beyond that.

 

[pitabread]

I have written a logical paper that proves evolution to be false, but uses different logic than this post.

The paper is at http://www.GHart.net/Evolution_Theory.pdf . I would greatly appreciate it if you would read it over, and provide any feedback that might improve upon it. My writing style is a not “professional”, … I’m not a writer. That’s where I was hoping you or a friend from your Church could help me.

This is riddled with falsehoods, misinformation and apparent misunderstanding of basic biology.

A few examples:

Your explanation of what a theory is isn't correct with respect to how the word "Theory" is used in science. Consequently, your explanation as to why evolution is only a theory isn't correct.

You claim that speciation hasn't been observed, when in fact it has. Your understanding of speciation and species barriers is also incomplete, given that species barriers in nature aren't also absolute. They can be a bit 'fuzzy' given things like hybridization, ring species, etc.

Your whole discussion around reproduction is just odd. First of all, just called it "sexual reproduction". Nobody calls it "gender based reproduction". That just sounds weird.

Second, there are more variations in nature than pure sexual or pure asexual reproduction, including organisms capable of both, organisms that are hermaphroditic and organisms that can change their sex.

At lot of the other claims are just bizarre. For example that animals should be evolving 360 degree vision or dogs shouldn't have tails. I'm not even sure what to say about that. It almost reads like satire.

 

[rjs330]

Fossils "suddenly" appear because of numerous reasons:
- some environments have little to no deposition associated with them, making it nearly impossible for any individuals to become buried and preserved. So when we do find them in these environments (such as forest ecosystems), the appearance is "sudden" because the opportunity for fossilization is not constant
- the probability of fossilization is therefore dependent on the preservation potential of the environment and the sediments that record it, but the probability of preservation is also highly dependent upon the organism. Some organisms that are entirely (or almost entirely) soft-bodied, have very low preservation potential. This is why the fossil record of jellyfish is so dismal (and they are far from the only group that we have little or no fossil record for). Our best fossil records are, by a wide margin, concentrated on macroinvertebrates, primarily the brachiopods, clams, gastropods, ammonoids, nautiloids, crinoids, sea urchins, corals, and some arthropods like trilobites (not so much for crustaceans as only the claws are reinforced with calcite whereas the whole carapace is reinforced with calcite for trilobites)
- sometimes the "sudden" appearance has more to do with when and how we sample a locality than anything else. Some units might be relatively recently (geologic units) discovered, or only recently did it become feasible to launch a collecting expedition to search through the strata (such as for Tiktaalik when Neil Shubin and his colleagues traveled to northern Canada, above the Arctic Circle)
- an additional reason for "sudden" appearances are the the taxa are rare. Meaning that when we sample them in the fossil record, we only ever find a limited number of them
- and the last significant issue we encounter (that comes to my mind) is that sedimentary systems are constantly experiencing erosion and remobilization of sediments. So even if something is preserved in the rock record, it might be subsequently removed via erosion and/or diagenesis


What you are referring to is what we call the Completeness of the Fossil Record, and it has been an important field of study in paleontology for decades now. In addition to this, the subject is also closely related to the study of Taphonomy (which is the study of how and why organisms become preserved as fossils).

Exactly and that's why fossil record cannot be used as evidence of evolution from a common ancestor. But that doesn't stop the evolutionists from trying. It's purely an assumption because there is no real evidence from the fossil record for it.

 

[Speedwell]

Exactly and that's why fossil record cannot be used as evidence of evolution from a common ancestor. But that doesn't stop the evolutionists from trying. It's purely an assumption because there is no real evidence from the fossil record for it.

It's not just an assumption, it's a reasonable inference from the data at hand. Why is that a problem?

 

[rjs330]

There are hundreds of papers published every year full of evidence for evolution. It is a fantasy to think they are all full of nothing but question marks and blank space.



Museums are not where you would go to find detailed evidence of speciation. For that you would look at published papers.



There's no such thing as proof in science. As for the evolution of various organs, you do realize that most tetrapods (including humans) have basically the same internal organs, right? And many of those organs are the same in fish. There's nothing special about human organs.



Do you even understand evolution? I ask because this question is something anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the subject would know the answer to. Dinosaurs (and marine and flying reptiles) evolved from basal archosaurs, as did crocodilians. Bascal archosaurs would have had all those body parts, as did basal saurians, etc. etc.



Even Darwin himself figured this out 170 years ago.
Eye Evolution

The evolution of the eye is only guesswork. We've never seen the eye come into being through evolution and we've never been able to test the theory in any fashion. You believe in evolution therefore the eye evolved. We don't therefore the eye didn't. Both are belief systems without "evidence" or observation or testing. Darwin didn't figure it out out at all. The "evolution" of the eye theory is merely a guess and assumption. As the poster pointed out it simply is not realistically possible. But that doesn't stop an evolutionist because they believe in evolution and no matter what argument is made it can't be true because they believe in evolution. It's a circular argument.

 

[pitabread]

Exactly and that's why fossil record cannot be used as evidence of evolution from a common ancestor. But that doesn't stop the evolutionists from trying. It's purely an assumption because there is no real evidence from the fossil record for it.

I asked you previously but you never answered: Do you believe that individual species have been continuously supernaturally created throughout the last ~4 billion years of Earth's history?

 

[rjs330]

It's not just an assumption, it's a reasonable inference from the data at hand. Why is that a problem?

Because it's not a reasonable inference because the data is severely lacking. It's merely an inference because one believes in evolution. It always starts with the belief. I believe therefore whatever is handed to me is "evidence" no matter how flimsy it might be. The evidence is assumed to be evidence of evolution even though there really isn't any evidence. The evidence itself is assumed.

 

[pitabread]

The evolution of the eye is only guesswork. We've never seen the eye come into being through evolution and we've never been able to test the theory in any fashion. You believe in evolution therefore the eye evolved. We don't therefore the eye didn't. Both are belief systems without "evidence" or observation or testing. Darwin didn't figure it out out at all. The "evolution" of the eye theory is merely a guess and assumption.

This isn't true at all. Hypotheses around eye (and vision) evolution are tested all the time. Like anything in science, it involves taking what we know, forming a hypothesis around how something could have occurred (whether formation of gross structures, underyling genetic changes, etc), determining predictions based on those hypothesis and then testing those predictions.

To suggest this is just "guesswork" is a gross misrepresentation of how science actually works.

 

[MrAnderson9]

First of all, a caterpillar turning into a butterfly is not evolving. Caterpillars do not evolve into butterflies.

Secondly, evolution is not directed. Evolution doesn't sit around thinking, "Oh yes, in about three billion years I want these single cell organisms to be Humans." Evolution is just trying out a bunch of small changes (which result from the copying process used to create off spring being an imperfect process), and then if one of those small changes leads to an increase in reproductive ability straight away, then that change will become more common, simply because the organisms with that change will have more offspring.

Everything in its current state is a product of evolution if you believe in evolution.. you can't have it both ways. The caterpillar turning into a butterfly is the current evolved state of the caterpillar/butterfly if you believe in evolution. The catepillar, butterfly, and process are products of evolution of you believe in evolution.

And in terms of the evolve process being based on an imperfect process that creates slight changes.. how do you know the process is imperfect vs directed for the purpose of creating variation?

If God wanted to populate the earth with different creatures.. using the same material.. what better way than to use this process.

And these rules for evolution support many different species developing all at once. Once life decided to happen on earth the variation process was already in effect causes multiple species to show up within seconds of each other. And full blown different animals/mammals and insects within A very short period.

Your evolution could barely show any effects.. seeing that you would have larger items and smaller minute changes for the imperfect practice would have less of an effect.

It would seem you'd have an explosion of species.. followed by incredibly slight changes.. and possibly some dying out for what ever reasons.

 

[MrAnderson9]

Ah, but we are talking about a process, not objects.

And like I said, there will be clear indications if two organisms have the same trait due to a common ancestor or if they have that trait due to convergent evolution.



Because water makes it difficult for the fire to obtain oxygen, and also because water absorbs the heat that the fire needs to continue burning.



Says anyone who understands basic science.

And it's a process, not a definition.

Yes but.. you are still on the surface. The question is.. what gives everything the properties that it obviously has? It can't get them from itself..

..in all honesty before any of these items could exist.. the thought and laws behind the items properties and interactions had to exist.

 

[MrAnderson9]

Big difference...I have evidence of both you and the hammers existing...

There's evidence that God exists, you may not understand it but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[MrAnderson9]

Only one of us accused the other of intellectual dishonesty, and it wasn't me. Are you sure you're correctly identifying where the anger is located?


You're confusing disagreement with lack of understanding. Your claim is clear enough. It's the logical support for it that is lacking.

No the logics are there.. it's your inability to process it that's lacking..

That's why I ask the simple question.. define "nothing"..

After you define nothing we can see where the bread down on either of our logic occurs.

 

[MrAnderson9]

Except that nobody thinks that everything is purely "random". We know there are basic physical laws that operate in the universe and that to a certain extent, there is consistency in how things operate.

This idea that everything in nature should be purely random sounds like a strawman you made up.

Where did these physical laws come from? How can you see that these laws are there and not have an assignment for their origin?

Some one had to create that law.. and obviously it wasn't the item the law is applied to.

The item couldn't even come into physical being without the law to govern and define it being in place prior to anything physical even showing up.

Before the universe.. before time.. before anything physical.. there had to have been intellect.

 

[pitabread]

Where did these physical laws come from? How can you see that these laws are there and not have an assignment for their origin?

Some one had to create that law.. and obviously it wasn't the item the law is applied to.

The item couldn't even come into physical being without the law to govern and define it being in place prior to anything physical even showing up.

Before the universe.. before time.. before anything physical.. there had to have been intellect.

We've had this discussion already. Either you're stuck having to explain where this pre-universe intellect came from or you're engaging in special pleading to avoid having to explain it.

Either way, this goes nowhere.

 

[MrAnderson9]

We've had this discussion already. Either you're stuck having to explain where this pre-universe intellect came from or you're engaging in special pleading to avoid having to explain it.

Either way, this goes nowhere.

It leads to intelligent design and you understand it. It proves God exists.. maybe not the religious "God".. but it definitely proves the existence of a designer..

Think about it.. you have 2 magnets that come into existence on different sides of the universe.. All the exact same laws of magnets apply to both magnets so obviously the magnets aren't creating their own laws and defining themselves. The law applies across the board.. so the law isn't the magnet.

This is proof of a "Desinger"

 

[pitabread]

It leads to intelligent design and you understand it. It proves God exists.. maybe not the religious "God".. but it definitely proves the existence of a designer..

Think about it.. you have 2 magnets that come into existence on different sides of the universe.. All the exact same laws of magnets apply to both magnets so obviously the magnets aren't creating their own laws and defining themselves. The law applies across the board.. so the law isn't the magnet.

This is proof of a "Desinger"

Demonstrating uniformity of the laws of the universe only demonstrates uniformity of the laws of the universe. It doesn't provide any kind of proof of any kind of designer, intelligent or otherwise.

 

[MrAnderson9]

Demonstrating uniformity of the laws of the universe only demonstrates uniformity of the laws of the universe. It doesn't provide any kind of proof of any kind of designer, intelligent or otherwise.

It does.. here's another question for you or anyone else ..

Can the object exist without the laws Or can the laws exist without the object?

 

[pitabread]

It does..

That's merely an assertion and not a particularly convincing one at that.

Your argument is merely "X exists and therefore Designerdidit". But you haven't demonstrated how your conclusion follows from your premise.

 

[MrAnderson9]

That's merely an assertion and not a particularly convincing one at that.

Your argument is merely "X exists and therefore Designerdidit". But you haven't demonstrated how your conclusion follows from your premise.

I think this is a cop out. What other logical conclusion do you have for this other than it is the work of a Designer?

If you don't have one will you admit that this is the most logical explanation ?

 

[pitabread]

I think this is a cop out. What other logical conclusion do you have for this other than it is the work of a Designer?

If you don't have one will you admit that this is the most logical explanation ?

An explanation doesn't gain logical credibility merely from the absence of other explanations.

It could very well be that the laws and nature of the universe just exist and that there is no outside supernatural designer or intelligence. We may be searching for a cause where one need not apply in the first place.