Flaws in Evolution

[sandy_mcd]

Which is why I say that evolution is not based on observations, and is a belief not a science. ...
No, it is not the same thing. I mean we actually observe chemical eactions.
Large microscopes that use electrons instead of light have been able to see
single atoms as fuzzy pictures on film. ... an extremely sensitive "probe" (basically a rod with a very fine tip) to wander around on the outside of some solid materials, and actually feel the bumps that are caused by the atoms there, and then a computer can convert those bumps into a picture of the surface
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/as ... PHY118.HTM

First of all, I do believe in the theory of chemistry and the existence of atoms and molecules.

Secondly, whereas we do observe reproducible chemical reactions (eg, mixing A and B gives a blue solution, mixing C and D produces an explosion), this is only macroscopic observation. These observations do not prove or explicitly show the existence of atoms and molecules. We do not see atoms. We do not see molecules.

Thirdly, even the source you reference agrees: "it is actually impossible for anybody to "see" an individual atom, since all atoms are thousands of times smaller than the smallest light waves we can see using our eyes."

So what we have is only indirect evidence and inference. Your quote above does not clearly show atoms - some invisible beam of so-called electrons and some voltages producing fuzzy pictures on TV screens. The interpretation of all of this produces evidence for atoms and molecules, but it all depends on the interpretation. The last Nobel Prize in Chemistry was given for olefin metathesis with ruthenium catalysts. Show me any direct observable evidence for any of that which does not rely on interpretation.

So, in conclusion, if you reject evolution since it is not based on direct observation (due to time) then you must needs reject the chemical theory of atoms and molecules since it is not based on direct observation (due to size). You can say the theory of chemistry may be true since it isn't contradicted by what you know from the Bible (as evolution is), but you cannot accept chemistry as true.

[Jbuza]

del

[sandy_mcd]

Oh OK thanks.

Oops, looks like you accidentally deleted your reply. Could you please repost ? thanks

[Jbuza]

There are atomic models and information within chemistry that appears to work. It explains what we observe. I do not see an evolutionary model that works or explains observations of extinction and organism stability.

[Zenith]

There are atomic models and information within chemistry that appears to work. It explains what we observe. I do not see an evolutionary model that works or explains observations of extinction and organism stability.

just because you do not see one doesnt mean it doesn't exist.

[Jbuza]

There are atomic models and information within chemistry that appears to work. It explains what we observe. I do not see an evolutionary model that works or explains observations of extinction and organism stability.

just because you do not see one doesnt mean it doesn't exist.

Just because you believe it doesn't mean it convinces me. If your happy with the evidence for evolution, than I have a bridge to sell you, really. I can tell you all about it if you like.

[Mystical]

Let's get really simple:

Horse and Peppered Moth


p.s. Here's another transitional form (an elephant and seal):

http://www.oceanlight.com/spotlight.php?img=2521

And (seal/hippo)

http://www.christian-soldier.net/web%20 ... ics/75.jpg

[sandy_mcd]

There are atomic models and information within chemistry that appears to work. It explains what we observe. I do not see an evolutionary model that works or explains observations of extinction and organism stability.

If you don't want to believe in evolution because you don't feel that the theory explains observations, then that is fine; it is your opinion. That is a much more defensible (and complicated) position than claiming that evolution, but not chemistry, is not a science because there are no direct observations.

[Jbuza]

There are atomic models and information within chemistry that appears to work. It explains what we observe. I do not see an evolutionary model that works or explains observations of extinction and organism stability.

If you don't want to believe in evolution because you don't feel that the theory explains observations, then that is fine; it is your opinion. That is a much more defensible (and complicated) position than claiming that evolution, but not chemistry, is not a science because there are no direct observations.

The direct observations are what convince me that evolution is false. And since I believe it to be false that means I do not accept it as science.

[The Barbarian]

Which direct observations might those be?

[Jbuza]

The observation that history shows extinction not adaptation through natural selection.

The observation that offspring are very similar to parents.

The observation that we do not see all manner of different mutations causing some individuals in a species to survive and others to die.

The observation that the world is an ordered, comples interworking system.

My own personal experiences that have evidenced the spiritual world.

[Zenith]

The observation that history shows extinction not adaptation through natural selection.

not adaptation? there is diversity and selection through extinction. this is what we see as adaptation.

The observation that offspring are very similar to parents.

but not exactly the same; slightly different, which is all that is needed for evolution.

The observation that we do not see all manner of different mutations causing some individuals in a species to survive and others to die.

because we have only been observing for a few hundred years, rather than the few thousand years that it takes for complex organisms to noticeably change. and we have observed adaptation in single-celled and simple organisms.

The observation that the world is an ordered, comples interworking system.

this is only an assumption. what you call natural, i call the work of god.

My own personal experiences that have evidenced the spiritual world.

and why should not the spiritual world affect the physical world by means of the natural processes that we observe everyday?

[Mastriani]

1.The observation that history shows extinction not adaptation through natural selection.

2.The observation that offspring are very similar to parents.

3.The observation that we do not see all manner of different mutations causing some individuals in a species to survive and others to die.

4.The observation that the world is an ordered, comples interworking system.

5.My own personal experiences that have evidenced the spiritual world.

I put the numbers in front of your assertions so they could easily be referenced.

1. Extinction means failure to adapt, which we have seen repeatedly throughout geologic history. If evolution did not work, ergo there was no adaptability in species, and knowing the cataclysmic events that have occurred, there would be no species of anything, including us, the hominids.

2. Simple scientific fact: DNA has copy flaws, but in general only the most favorable traits are passed through to ensure continuation of the species.

3. We see exactly that, straight down the line. Otherwise, the species is part of the fossil record, and not here today.

4. Truly there is an order to all things in this world, mankind being the only aberration, and a horrid one at that.

5. I too have experienced a spiritual world, but that does not obviate the findings and observations that lead us to understanding of just how detached we are from the world.

By the way, life is given by the mother, mitochondrial DNA is the source of life for all higher organisms. It is a subject that should be closely studied if you truly want to understand the order of the systems on this planet, which are not as patriarchal as we would like to believe.

[Jbuza]

Yes. Yes. I understand how evolution explains away observations.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Yes. Yes. I understand how evolution explains away observations.

Any scientific theory needs to explain the observations.

Do you have a counter explanation?