Evolution Sucks!

POSTED BY: dougp59
UPDATED: Monday, July 27, 2026 16:36
VIEWED: 32323
PAGE 1 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

DOUGP59

Monday, January 9, 2006 4:25 PM

Please checkout my new website www.evolutionsucks.org

The war against evolution intensifies!

SIGNYM

Monday, January 9, 2006 5:17 PM

Well, you've shown the true colors "inteligent designerists": it's a "war on evolution". Thanks for confirming that.

So, your questions...

Hmmm... you're looking for fossils of bacteria? Trust me, you won't find them. Being soft critters, they don't fossilize too well.

Many of your questions have to do with transitional fossils. I'll address them all at once. It's likely that new species developed in geographically isolated areas undergoing intense environmental change. The selection process was accelerated. It wasn't until these geographic areas became united with other areas and the new species became establised that fossils were created. But specifically about dinosuars and birds: You haven't heard of archaeopteryx? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archeopteryx Also, some biologists are noew wondering whether dinosaurs weren't actually more bird-like that initally thought. Some recent finds that included details of dino skin show a "gooseflesh" -type pattern inidicating the possible presence of feathers.

What does the speed of light have to do with evolution? May as well ask about gravity, too while you're at it. Call it "intelligent falling". www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

I have some questions for YOU:

How do you explain the presence of fossils?

How do you explain genetic similarities between so many animals, including highly conserved sequences where chlorophyl looks a lot like hemoglobin?

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

DOUGP59

Monday, January 9, 2006 7:11 PM

I do not doubt that fossils are real.

As to your post, you obviously are referring to punctuated equilibrium, an attempt to get around the fact that transitional fossils do not exist in the fossil record.

So for lack of physical evidence, you by faith, believe in something that can't be seen in the fossil record. That almost sounds religious. :)

Here's a question for you.

Evolution says simpler life evolved into more complex life via natural selection.

What biological evolutionary process has been shown to be able to INCREASE the information in the DNA molecule?

As to Archaeopteryx, well, allow me to quote
Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself.

“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”

Sorry, linking to a Wikipedia article is clearly trumped by Dr. Feduccia's quote. The link http://www.bio.unc.edu/faculty/feduccia/ clearly places him at the Univerisity and as an evolutionist to beat.

His quote is really quite damning.

As to the speed of light, well, isn't an old universe needed in a evolutionary cosmology?

Well, since you referenced Wikipedia, I will now...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light

If the speed of light has NOT been a constant since DAY ONE (irregardles of when that was), then the whole of evolutionary cosmology collapses!

SPIKEANDJEZEBEL

Monday, January 9, 2006 7:34 PM

Other than the title of your website (which I choose to take rather tongue-in-cheek), I like that your site attempts to rationally discuss the issue, rather than simply declaring that you are right and we are wrong. In that spirit, I will answer your questions from my point of view (that of an atheist who firmly believes in evolution):

Question #1 Can you show the transitional fossils that prove ANY of this? - I am not sure about the specific fossils in question (the Mesonychids to Whale), but there are loads of transitional fossils that show the transitions between fish and reptile, reptile and bird, apes to humans, etc. Just because we don't have a specific fossil for EVERY transition doesn't mean that the theory is invalid.

Question #2 If we are prepared to say that an inference of intelligence detected from far away originating radio waves must be proof of intelligent life (the designer of the radio signal), then why is an inference of intelligence in complex living systems here on earth not proof of an intelligent designer of that complex system? - A signal from an intelligent alien species would not be an inference of intelligence, it would be evidence of it. There is no evidence of an intelligent "designer" on Earth, or anywhere else in the universe as yet. I would define evidence of this as something which could not be explained through natural causes, which has not been found.

Does this sound like a double standard? - I would say no, because scientists are merely searching for signs of intelligence - they have not claimed to find it or know what it might be. Nobody is saying that ID proponents cannot search for evidence of their theory, either.

Question #3 Given the large numbers of species in the fossil record extant in Cambrian fossil beds, explain why fossil beds beneath them are devoid of transitional fossils? What mechanism was responsible for this vast array of species suddenly appearing in the fossil record? - a logical explanation would be that the primitive life had developed to a point where it became very efficient, through some leap in evolution. Having little or no predators and an abundance of natural resources, it is not difficult to assume that a life form could thrive exponentially.

Question #4 Can you show the transitional fossils for all THREE of these GIANT steps of evolution? As I mentioned before, there is a lot of evidence for these transitions, but possibly not every single organism between. (Another poster sited the archaeopterix above.) This is where thought and extrapolation comes in. A crime scene investigator does not need a videotape proving every crime he or she investigates, since they can make determinations based on DNA samples and carpet fibers. Same thing here. (Again, i would ask - can a proponent of ID show ANY evidence at all supporting their theory?)

Question #5 Can you prove empirically that the speed of light has remained constant since the beginning of time? - I am not sure if anyone can empirically prove this yet, although the majority of scientists agree on the general age of the universe. If scientific evidence is obtained that says the universe is the Biblical age of 5000 years, than this question may be relevent to the evolution debate. Currently, it is not.

Question #6 The theory of evolution says that less complex organisms evolved into more complex life forms. How could the Bacterial Flagellum have evolved from a lower life form? What is its' transitional fossil? - The scientific theory to explain this is that the flagellum may have evolved for a different purpose, and was merely co-opted into its current purpose. I'm sure you will admit that transitional fossils for small, squishy life forms like bacteria are difficult at best to obtain, so obviously it is difficult to find the exact fossil to prove every case. However, absence of a particular fossil by no means invalidates the theory, or lends any more weight to the Intelligent Design theory.It is just an area where speculation will have to do for now.

Qu

SIGNYM

Monday, January 9, 2006 7:36 PM

Quote:
I do not doubt that fossils are real.

Then they must be God's practical joke on us, eh?

Quote:
As to your post, you obviously are referring to punctuated equilibrium, an attempt to get around the fact that transitional fossils do not exist in the fossil record. So for lack of physical evidence, you by faith, believe in something that can't be seen in the fossil record. That almost sounds religious. :)

There are several lines of evidence pointing to evolution. One is the fossil record itself. The other is the conservation of critical portions of DNA. In fact, I have thought about the evolution of humans specifically which illustrates the process of punctuated equilibrium. Some day, if you decide to open your mind, I'll take the trouble to type it up.

Quote:
Evolution says simpler life evolved into more complex life via natural selection. What biological evolutionary process has been shown to be able to INCREASE the information in the DNA molecule?

There are all kinds of ways that DNA can be expanded and modified. Some gets accidentally repeated. Viruses and stuff leave bits of their own DNA in ours. And then there are mutations. Bacteria actually exchange DNA. The process is most notable in drug resistance. But it has been re-created in computer simulations.

Quote:
“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”

Here is the latest:
www.sciencenews.org/articles/20051015/fob1.asp
www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc98/6_27_98/fob1.htm
www.sciencenews.org/pages/search_results.asp
Just google up archaeopteryx.

Quote:
His quote is really quite damning.

Not really.

Quote:
As to the speed of light, well, isn't an old universe needed in a evolutionary cosmology?

There is probably something wrong in the theory of cosmology and the "big bang" theory. Not being a "big bangist" myself, I'm not troubled by inconsistancies but am really curious to see what new paradigm will emerge. Still, no matter how you look at the universe, if you take all of the evidence and put it together (you know, decay rates of radioactive elements, birth and death of stars, galaxy formation, evidence of billions of years of sedimentation on the earth) its really really old. Older than you can conceive. And since your mind seems to be rather limited, you would rather junk all of the data and simplify the universe to an easily-understood mantra: "God done it". Well, that's enough arguing for today. I have a busy real life.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NEVERED

Monday, January 9, 2006 7:45 PM

I'm really curious as to how anyone can justify believing an argument that sounds so stupid.

"The Invisible Space Wizard Did It!"

Of course!

That must be it!

How could we be so blind?

CITIZEN

Monday, January 9, 2006 8:15 PM

Erm, Natural Selection is a pretty firm theory. Evolution as a whole, not so much. But then it's still a hell of a lot firmer than intelligent design, as is VSL, yet most physicists discount that too. Mainly because it’s not as firm either in theory or experimental evidence as Relativity, I imagine.

Just one thing, you say evolution sucks because it has flaws, which it does, well done. But you seem to be suggesting we replace it with intelligent design, which is one big flaw with not even a scientific theory, let alone evidence to back it up.

It's a belief system, not a science.

Quote:
Originally posted by dougp59:
What biological evolutionary process has been shown to be able to INCREASE the information in the DNA molecule?

Firstly your making a big mistake there, more complex organisms don't necessarily have more DNA. An Onion has 12 times more DNA than you do, and amoebas have 200 times the Genome of a Human. So in order to get more complex forms of life you DO NOT need more DNA.

Secondly to answer your question bacteria increase their DNA all the time. When a cell dies it's cell wall becomes ruptured, and the cells contents is released into the environment. Nearby bacteria can absorb this DNA, thus gaining DNA.

Viruses that attack cells can also transfer DNA between cells. There's plenty of biological ways that extra genetic information can be incorporated into a cell.

Quote:
As to the speed of light, well, isn't an old universe needed in a evolutionary cosmology?

Yeees... Now prove the universe isn't that old.

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light

Nothing there that has anything to do with either the age of the universe or evolution.

Quote:
If the speed of light has NOT been a constant since DAY ONE (irregardles of when that was), then the whole of evolutionary cosmology collapses!

We can all make nonsensical post hoc comments.
If I had a penny god doesn't exist.
Oh look, a penny.

If blue is a colour then Turnips are triangles.

See?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

DOUGP59

Monday, January 9, 2006 10:01 PM

ID a belief system and not a Science?!

What do you do for a living? Are you a scientist?

If not, than how can you refute what all the scientists involved in ID research are doing?!?!

Talk about a closed mind!

Yikes!!!

DOUGP59

Monday, January 9, 2006 10:20 PM

A variable speed of light (VSL) is the concept that the speed of light may not be constant over time. This has several implications for physics. [1] This concept is used by VSL cosmologies to explain observations usually explained by the inflationary models, but they can also explain other cosmological problems. [2] A changing speed of light and our current view of relativity are not compatible.

STORYMARK

Monday, January 9, 2006 10:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dougp59:
ID a belief system and not a Science?!

What do you do for a living? Are you a scientist?

If not, than how can you refute what all the scientists involved in ID research are doing?!?!

Talk about a closed mind!

Yikes!!!

You say this, but do not respond to any of the points raised above, and do not offer any evidence to support your claims.

I agree. Yikes!

"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE