Question:
Question on Evolution.?
2010-04-19 09:37:46 UTC
Now before I begin.
I am a Catholic and I am deciding on whether to adopt evolution or stick with creationism.
Evolution goes along completely with Catholicism so whatever you say it will not shake my faith, please don't bother.

Anyway here are my ten questions.
# ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

# DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

# HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry -- a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?

# VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry -- even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?

# ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?

# PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?

# DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?

# MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution -- even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?

# HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident -- when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

# EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact -- even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?

*not my questions I found them at http://www.iconsofevolution.com/tools/questions.php3 but thought they were interesting.
Eight answers:
James D
2010-04-19 09:45:40 UTC
Im sorry, but these questions are not for evolutionists to explain, however I can see that your questions are biased against evolution.



I can safetly say that evolution is a fact over creationsm.

You can see evolution wherever you look, look at the human evolution.

Homo sapians, and the recently discovered new form that backs up evolution of humans labelled "Woman X" that was found in a siberian cave, and modern man.



There are many evolutionary adaptations, look at plants for example. How could insect pollinating plants exist if there were no insects around? Because they evolved. They did not used to be insect pollinated, and it adapted and evolved into spreading pollen via insects.



However I do value your belief.



Im sorry, but evolution is just inevitable. Being unable to accept it is like hiding in a closet and refusing that gays have the right to have partners.
RjKardo
2010-04-19 11:19:55 UTC
The iconsofevolution website is produced by the Discovery Institute, a Intelligent Design organization. It is based off the work of Jonathan Wells, who wrote the book "The Icons of Evolution".



In short, it is nonsense. You can easily do a web search and find the answers compiled by more honest scientist than Wells, but I will give it a quick shot:

1. Miller's experiment has been repeated, and works, for various types of atmospheres thought to have existed at the time of life's beginnings.

2. Textbooks do talk about the Cambrian explosion. And there are many fossils pre-dating the Cambrian, look up the Burgess Shale and, well, try 'pre-Cambrian' as a search topic.

3. Because homology is comparative, and can be tested and sampled due to dna traits.

4. This is a reference to Haeckels work, and Haeckel did not fake his drawings. They were not accurate, but photo's of embryos confirm the similarity of embryo formation.

5. Archeopteryx is one of many links between dino's and modern birds. It is an example of a flying dinosaur with feathered wings.

6. This is just, well, a flat out lie. Moths rest wherever they want. Some of the pictures were 'staged' to get a clear image of the moths, but so what?

7. Read 'The Beak of the Finch' for more on this. The changing size and type of the beaks are an example of natural selection, exactly. Selection of beak size can be affected by the environment, which is exactly the point of NS.

8. Not true, and one of the points of fruit flies in experiments is you have to get them from special breeding labs whose purpose is to *keep* the flies from evolving.

9. Just flat out nonsense. Some of this is so hard to argue because it is so mind-boggeling that creationist can be so dishonest.

10. Of course it is a fact, and that the creationist work so hard to lie about it should give you a clue about how hard they have to try to go against it.



So look up Jonathon Wells, and the Discovery Institute. Then look up scientific criticisms of the book. That should pretty well do it. Easiest way is to check out their 'quote-mines' where they purposefully take work out of context.



Ok, start here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html
novangelis
2010-04-19 10:05:55 UTC
ORIGIN OF LIFE.

The conditions in the Miller-Urey experiment were not far off. The exaggerated claim does not invalidate the test. The origin of life is still under study and there are interesting results.



# DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE.

The Cambrian lasted over 50 million years, and there was prior multicellular life in the Ediacaran.



# HOMOLOGY.

Homology is more than a circular argument. It can and has been tested by studying the developmental genes responsible for those structures. Turning on some deactivated genes allows chickens to produce teeth.



# VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS.

There were some famous faked drawings, but they are not found in any modern textbooks. You might find some in textbooks dating from the era when teaching evolution was still illegal in some states. The studies in embryology are constantly retested. Evolutionary developmental biology ("evo-devo") does not depend upon those drawings.



# ARCHAEOPTERYX.

You should look up "protarchaeopteryx", an older feathered dinosaur. There is far more data than archaeopteryx in the bird to dinosaur transition. These claims regarding archaeopteryx are so distorted that they are laughable.



# PEPPERED MOTHS.

A photo for illustration does not invalidate the extensive study of the change in color that occurred as coal-burning increased, and the reversal after coal-burning was decreased after the infamous London smogs. The peppered moth is well-studied.



# DARWIN'S FINCHES.

This shows how populations (not individuals) adapt to changing food supplies. The process of irreversible speciation



# MUTANT FRUIT FLIES.

Beneficial mutations are observed. You rely upon some of them for your food.



# HUMAN ORIGINS.

There is a lot more than artist's depictions. The variation in the human genome is about one tenth the difference between humans and chimpanzees.



# EVOLUTION A FACT?

Why do people accept atomic theory as a fact? It explains observed phenomena. The modern synthesis (a number of other subdisciplines that Darwin couldn't have imagined are involved) explains the observed phenomena, and Darwin's fundamental ideas remain sound.
mormon
2016-10-03 04:37:45 UTC
a million) According to evolutionists, Humans advanced from apes? Humans are apes by means of definition. Linnaeus categorised us as such and he used to be a creationist. two) There are many verified details in technological know-how, however evolution is only a thought. False because of a false impression of the phrase thought. A reality, in technological know-how, is a discrete factor of expertise. Theories attach details and give an explanation for them. There isn't any larger category than thought. three) A transitional sort is a fossil of an animal that's facet one species and facet a further. False. All organisms are transitional. four) The age of the earth is discovered by means of scientists completely by way of the radioactive relationship of fossils ? The age of the Earth used to be discovered by means of relationship a meteor at the assumption that the Solar System used to be the entire identical age. All different calculations are compatible the age located. five) The clinical process starts with a prediction after which appears for proof to aid that prediction? It starts with commentary. Then a speculation is shaped from that commentary. After the speculation is shaped, scientists appear for proof to aid or falsify the speculation. 6) The thought of evolution involves the Big Bang? False. 7) To feel in evolution is to feel that lifestyles and topic got here from not anything? False.
Marching Spartan
2010-04-19 14:36:30 UTC
My answer is that both religion and the theory of evolution go hand in hand. THis is what i have decided. For God a day for him can mean many years to us. so in his first day our world started, and every day is another point of evolution as darwin and scientists have found out. then God made man which is when the humans come into the theory of evolution. If you want to know more just e-mail me, dominic.
DNAunion
2010-04-19 13:35:59 UTC
What happened to chapter 10: Fossil Horses and Directed Evolution?



Scientifically, I can tell you what's wrong with each of Wells' distortions, but that would take too long and others have already given some of that anyway. So I'll switch course.



You know that Wells is a huge liar, right? In his book that those came from, he lies as follows ...





-----------------------

If you had asked me during my years studying science at Berkeley whether or not I believed what I read in my science textbooks, I would have responded much as any of my fellow students: puzzled that such a question would be asked in the first place. One might find tiny errors, of course, typos and misprints. And science is always discovering new things. But I believed – took it as a given – that my science textbooks represented the best scientific knowledge available at that time.



It was only when I was finishing my Ph.D. in cell and development biology, however, that I noticed what at first I took to be a strange anomaly.

(Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution)

-----------------------







A complete lie. Wells makes it sound like he believed everything he learned about evolution while getting his education and it wasn't until after he was almost finished getting his Ph.D. that he started doubting it. HOGWASH!!! He decided to "destroy Darwinism" before he even entered the Ph.D. program for biology!





-----------------------

Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.

by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.-Berkeley, CA



At the end of the Washington Monument rally in September, 1976, I was admitted to the second entering class at Unification Theological Seminary. During the next two years, I took a long prayer walk every evening. I asked God what He wanted me to do with my life, and the answer came not only through my prayers, but also through Father's many talks to us, and through my studies. Father encouraged us to set our sights high and accomplish great things.



He also spoke out against the evils in the world; among them, he frequently criticized Darwin's theory that living things originated without God's purposeful, creative activity. My studies included modern theologians who took Darwinism for granted and thus saw no room for God's involvement in nature or history; in the process, they re- interpreted the fall, the incarnation, and even God as products of human imagination.



Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.







I eventually decided to join the fray by returning to graduate school in biology. I was convinced that embryology is the Achilles' heel of Darwinism; one cannot understand how organisms evolve unless one understands how they develop. In 1989, I entered a second Ph.D. program, this time in biology, at the University of California at Berkeley. While there, I studied embryology and evolution.

(http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Wells/DARWIN.htm

Retrieved 03/02/2010)

-----------------------





He is religious, has a religious axe to grind with evolution, has a motive to lie, and lies to cover up his motive to lie. Why trust him?
Heben
2010-04-19 10:13:53 UTC
Many of your questions are false and misleading in themselves. You cannot disprove anything by trying to confuse people. Don't believe everything you read on a website. Do some actual reading and studying on your own.
kidachan
2010-04-19 11:06:32 UTC
i am personally a believer in evolution but i believe that every step has had the hand of god to guide the process. my ap biology textbook brilliantly put the process of evolution as "hoping that a random bullet through the engine block of a car will help increase engine performance" with this i believe that evolution would not be possible without god's help.

1. it is said that the very first living organism was a protazoa. from the protazoa we get bacteria which eventually evolved into all types of live. no one knows where the protazoa came from for all we know aliens could have dropped one off on our ocean just to see what happened or god combined Carbon diligently with other natural components and gave birth to life. until scientes tell me how carbon and other chemicals came together to create life those are my two theories.

2.hmmmmmmm (i hear my brain smoking) wiki says The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere, centers on three key points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid change; and what it would imply about the origin and evolution of animals. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures left in Cambrian rocks" so by the sounds of it the reason it's omited is because no one understands it that well. but some of the teories as to why it took place include: in creased oxygen, the appearnce of the HOX gene which is what controls the development of an embroyo into an organism, a race between predator and pray, End-Ediacaran mass extinction: Mass extinctions are often followed by adaptive radiations as existing clades expand to occupy the ecospace emptied by the extinction. However, once the dust had settled, overall disparity and diversity returned to the pre-extinction level in each of the Phanerozoic extinctions.

3. "convergent evolution" this one is the easist for me to answer out of your questions so far. take humans, chimps and apes. we are all very very smiliar from the shape of our hands, the way we think differently from other animals and our errect posture. in evolutionary terms we are "cousins" due to our smiliarities. so by looking at these traits we can look back and find that all three of us once had the same ancestor whcih is who all three of use got the same traits. no differnet then a grandfather having a big nose and passing it onto all of his grandchildren.

4. my AP bio studies centered themselves around the human embryo as the example because that it what most of use were going to school for anyway. i was taught that it's durning the blastular stage that all of the vertebrates look alike. this blastula stage is shortly after the ball of cells move towards the outer shell and start hollwing out, then the cells start to move inward in the same manner starting with the digestive system. after this the form starts to look differnet and this is where the varation between species begins: http://www.cbu.edu/~aross/embhome.htm

5. ah! i watched an enter episode of Nova dedicated to discuing this guy! and just this problem! they site this as a trail. it has many similarities to normal birds such as the feather but the suspect it is an unsuccessful branch of the common ansetor between archaeoptery and today's birds. meanign that if todays birds were give the letter "a" and archaeoptery were given the letter "c" they are still looking for "b" which the two have incommon.

6. ahhh the story of the pepper moths. from what wiki says they do rest on tree trunks "From their original data, Howlett and Majerus (1987) concluded that peppered moths generally rest in unexposed positions, using three main types of site. Firstly, a few inches below a branch-trunk joint on a tree trunk where the moth is in shadow; secondly, on the underside of branches and thirdly on foliate twigs." and wiki veiw on evolution of the peppered moth: "The evolution of the peppered moth over the last two hundred years has been studied in detail. Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths had light colouration, which effectively camouflaged them against the light-coloured trees and lichens upon which they rested. However, due to widespread pollution during the Industrial Revolution in England, many of the lichens died out, and the trees which peppered moths rested on became blackened by soot, causing most of the light-coloured moths, or typica, to die off due to predation. At the same time, the dark-coloured, or melanic, moths, carbonaria, flourished because of their ability to hide on the darkened trees."

7.this is a short term perspective. while it is true that durning the corse of the study no net evolution occured you must think in terms of thousands of years. if the drough were to of lasted more then the couple of decades it did the change of the beack would of become perminate due to the complete disspearance of the other beak. but due to the shortlived nature of that particular drought the other group was able to make a come back instead of competly dying out.

8."fruit flies have a simple genome which makes them a favorite of scientists. It is useful to study mutant fruit flies, as their quick reproduction rate allows scientists to observe the advantages and disadvantages of certain mutations. These fruit flies are also helpful in determining whether certain stimulants cause mutation. " they are used as the proof of how genes are passed on. surprise this comes from the orkinman!

9.this picture is considered highly inacurate and ost evolutionary scientiest would wish that that picture had never been created because it shows more or less our current cousins and the smiliarities to them rather then where all of us came from. this was a picture created during darwinian times before there was a better understanding. when dealing with fossils there's always differnet interpertations of what the creatures would have looked like. fossil experit still flight over what color a dinosaur should have been and many times the fossil experets keep going back and scaly dinosaurs that i grew up with are suddenly getting featers due to new proof that keeps coming out. there is no way for us to currently hop back in time ad take a picture of our ancestors, what we have currently is just a vaguge patch work. there was a discovery channel special not to long ago wich displai the life of our ansestors and what we currently believe they looked like and thought like.

10. the "misrepresentations" of the facts were true in their era. such as the question above about the monkey to human picture. at that time that was easily believed even though it is false. what is true about the drawin's evolution is the statement "survival of the fittest" which is only the fittest in nature are able to reproduce and leave offspring. this is true. only those able to reproduce are able to account for the process of evolution. there was once an experiment done with 2 types of bacteria. they consumed the same amount of the same food, they fit the same "nitch" but one reproduced slower the the other. after some time the bacteria that reproduced slower was whiped out by the group that could reproduce quicker and use the food more efficiently.



now as i said at the start i believe that evolution is true and occurs but it's god's guidance which makes it possible and that it's god which even gave us life in the first place.

now it's not letting me post so i'm going to try puttig my sources in here and if that'll help....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_ex…

http://www.cbu.edu/~aross/embhome.htm

nova-education made painless

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_mo…

http://www.orkin.com/flies/fruit-fly/mut…


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...