First, there is a contradiction between “punctuated equilibrium” and “gradualism.” There are two basic possibilities for how naturalistic evolution can occur. This flaw in the theory of evolution occurs because these two ideas are mutually exclusive, and yet there is evidence suggestive of both of them. Gradualism…
> “First, there is a contradiction between “punctuated equilibrium” and “gradualism.” ”
Not really – there is no reason why both cannot occur.
The current best-accpeted model is for longer periods of gradualistic change (slow) interspersed with short periods of rapid change.
> “This flaw in the theory of evolution occurs because these two ideas are mutually exclusive”
Sorry, but they are not, in fact.
> “The second flaw is the problem of extending “microevolution” into “macroevolution.” Laboratory studies have shown that organisms are capable of adaptation. That is, living things have an ability to shift their biology to better fit their environment. However, those same studies have demonstrated that such changes can only go so far, and those organisms have not fundamentally changed.”
Sorry – but again, this is not the case.
The studies have demonstrated that, over a period of only a few years, changes can only “go so far” – but even then, the changes can be dramatic:
> “Experimentally, there is no reason to suggest that a species can change beyond its own genetic limits and become something else.”
Can I ask what mechanism you propose to preven many small-scale changes from eventually addying-up to large-scale changes?
After all – if I step an inch a day, I will eventually walk a hundred miles.
> “There are still many, many fundamental questions about the development of life that evolution has not answered. There are many, many questions about biological life that it cannot answer.”
Like what, exactly?
> “And yet, there are those who try to transform the theory from a biological explanation into a metaphysical one. Every time a person claims that the theory of evolution disproves religion, spirituality, or God, they are taking the theory outside of its own limits.”
Now this, I agree with.
No scientist would ever claim that evolution, or any other field of science, could disprove God in any way.
It might remove the neccessity for invoking God, and therefore make the philosophical case for His non-existence more parsimonious and compelling – but that is not the same thing as disproving Him.
Absolutely NOT! I can not agree with your logically flawed argument from ignorance. Simply because there are different theories of evolution do not make them mutually exclusive. It might simply means one of them might be incorrect. Evolution really has nothing to do with breeding dogs. Breeding dogs is done under human stipulations and not a slow process dealing with numerous climatic problems over eons and a multiplicity of other stimuli. I suspect you have a religious bias which leads you into this diatribe regarding evolution. Many religious fanatics believe the world is 10k years old, well science rebukes this quite easily. So therefore dinosaurs and humans did not simultaneously exist. These facts I believe started the RELIGION VS EVOLUTIONARY THEORY WAR. At least the Evolutionists are working to a scientific standard, whereas the religionists are working with the fairytale standards, where anything goes.
PLEASE out yourself and your true purposes and stop hiding behind words and flawed thought processes. How can I have an “axe to grind against god” if he or she does not exist? Don’t get me wrong I’m not an Atheist (and believe they are logically perverted – you can’t prove a negative). However being Agnostic, this allows me to question both sides of this argument…
“There are two basic possibilities for how naturalistic evolution can occur” – False. There is no exclusionary principle that says only one method can be in force at the same time.
“Gradualism seems to be contradicted by the fossil record.” – False. Examples of many variations exist in fossil records where only sedimentary soils have existed. Where igneous soils are involved, some destruction of fossils probably occurred that obscured some of the slow transitional stages.
“However, those same studies have demonstrated that such changes can only go so far, and those organisms have not fundamentally changed.” – FAIL. The studies cannot have spanned more than about 150 years whereas evolution had 150 MILLION years – times 30! Don’t expect macro results in micro time. This is an unreasonable demand that betrays ignorance of the basic concepts.
“Every time a person claims that the theory of evolution disproves religion” – FALSE – we who are atheists do not claim that evolution disproves religion. We claim that when religion demands strict adherence to the words of the Bible, THEN is when it fails. Evolution stands on its own. The Bible, because it is a single set of books with little or no contemporary corroboration, is like a single, faint voice in the wilderness, banging a gong loudly but signifying nothing. In other words, we don’t need evolution to disagree with what religion has to offer (to us, emptiness). Religion fails on its own.
But thanks for trying.
Evolution is driven by change in the environment and limited by genome rate of change.
If the environment changes rapidly then you get punctuated evolution. If the environment changes slowly you get gradual evolution.
There is no difference between micro and macro evolution other than time/generations. Saying micro can not lead to macro is like saying you can walk 10 yards, but you can not walk 10 miles. Sorry? What is stopping this? Please provide the genetic mechanism that will stop genome change at a certain point. Or shut up.
Misapplication of a theory – or to be more accurate – your alleged misapplication of a theory does not invalidate the correct application of a theory.
This is like saying Relativity is wrong because when I apply it to baking a pie it is unable to make predictions. So what? It still applies to fast moving objects, etc.
Pretty epic fail there.
disagree my friend. im not gunna lie, i dont have the time or inclination to read past the first paragraph. well, mostly inclination, all the time in the world… but anyways, gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are not mutually exclusive, rather, they work together, in harmony, to create the known world.
i know that as a creationist you probably resist the idea of doing this, but i would suggest reading “The God Delusion” by Dawkins. very interesting, and there is no reason to not at least take an honest look at all the evidence. you have spent a life being bombarded by people who think that evolution is wrong, creationism is right, but i challenge you to just look at the evidence to the contrary.
i hope this helps!!!
ps. i read a lil of the second paragraph, and i would like to mention that micro evolution, since it doesnt involve any baisc genetic change, has no effect on species evolution. and actually, as far as turnign a dog into something else, that is a speciation even, and occurs when two groups are formed, defined by their differences in ability to mate, whether biological, behavioural, or temporal. from that point, the two species that were created diverge either gradually or in a single dramatic incident seperately, influenced by surroundings, and random genetic drift.
pps. i do not know anybody who has a personal vendetta, any kind of “axe to grind” against god. organized relion, sure. god, no.
ppps. well hell. i just read the whole thing. but anyways, fossilization is rare, occuring only in the most perfect of conditions. in no way can it be used as anything but loose evidence of evolution. the fact that natural selection as an effector of evolution occurs so frequently, throughout sociology, biology, and even ideaology, is strong evidence of evolution. Evolution has as much evidence to back it as gravity, another “theory.” the only reason that the theory of gravity is not so heavily disputed is that it doesnt go against anything that the bible fundamentally teaches, except a few miracles.
why is there a contradiction between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium? organisms could exist in relative stability until the environment changes rapidly, which could cause rapid change, like an increase in radiation due to a close supernova or solar flare.
you appear to be looking for ways to disprove evolution cuz you feel religion is attacked by science. science doesn’t care about god. believe as you wish, but creationists seem to be happy to accept their belief in a god driven universe without proof and with an acceptance of apparent contradictions that they won’t credit evolution. if you come into the discussion with an agenda, you aren’t intellectually honest.
Good posting of creationist propaganda.
Evolution is a scientific theory without any significant flaws. Creation is a theory with more flaws than evidence.
Sadly, you fail to understand Evolutionary science and are simply parroting the bile that creationist keep spewing up.
A scientific theory is closer to fact than any other type of theory. In science, theory is based on physical evidence and a result or solution is posited based on the available information and empirical evidence. The theory holds true until empirical evidence comes along to disprove or change the theory to match the new evidence.
In science, they observe evidence, cause and effect and such, then base the theory on the evidence.
In Creationism, they posit a theory and seek out “evidence” to prove the theory.
Evolution is so unrealistic and deceiving. When I went to school and was taught evolution I’d put my head down on the desk and go to sleep. My grandmother taught me that God created the heavens and the earth and that made much more sense than the big bang nonsense.
Are there flaws in evolution?…Are there flaws in counterfeit $20 bills? Absolutely! Do I study evolution to find the flaws? No, I study the bible, the truth and can easily see the error.
When I worked as a cashier many years ago I was able to detect counterfeit money very easily because I became keenly aware of the feel of the real bills. Study the real and you will recognize the false.
Here’s a great website that the evolutionists detest because it reveals truth and gives meaning to life. http://www.answersingenesis.org/
No atheist or scientist have EVER tried to claim that evolution disproves “God”. NONE. It’s Christian creationists who make that claim.
Atheists and scientistts don’t even think about God when they’re looking at or studying evolution.
It’s the paranoid “it’s all about us” religious fundamentalists who are creating a problem where there needs not be one. (As usual.)
If you want proper, scientific answers to everyting you posted here, stop reading creationists websites. You will get nothing but misinformation from them.
For sure there are probably flaws, being we don’t know everything. But the general structure of evolution is quite secure. Small change over a period of time pushed by geological situations. And I have never heard anybody say that evolution disproves god. Science has nothing to do with god. And do you know how long 35 billion years are? It took a millions of years, millions! before life expanded Beyond single cells.