Evolution "a load of flawed crap"?

[chakka35]

On another thread here blu3wave used the above expression to describe Darwin's "theory".

Would he or she like to back this invective with some fact, evidence or reasoning?

[123everton]

Darwens "The Origin Of Species" is only a theory it's not as alot of people would have you believe a fact.
To my mind (I believe in God) it's a balanced and well thought out tome (it has a caveat to do with mechanical movement) and unlike alot of other wacky scientific thoughts and projections has never been conclusively disproven (although there are examples which bring it into question).The best answer would be for you to go and read it, then decide for yourself.

[WaldoMcFroog]

This so-called 'argument' is frequently advanced by anti-evolutionists who either don't have the most basic clue what they're talking about or have convinced themselves it's acceptable to tell out and out lies in order to defeat the great satan that is evolution.

Go and look up what the word 'theory' means when used by scientists and then go and stand in the corner for ten minutes wearing the special hat.

You've talked several times about wanting your views treated with respect. You're not going to get any while you reiterate feeble nonsense like this because it doesn't deserve any.

[naomi24]

Blu3wave made a positive statement, so Chakka is entitled to ask for some evidence or reasoning to support it.

(By the way, 123, I'll take an educated guess - I think he may just have already read Darwin).

[WaldoMcFroog]

For clarity, my post was aimed at Everton123's 'evolution is just a theory' cack, and certainly not Chakka.

[naomi24]

Waldo, I don't know if you're talking to me, but just in case we have some confusion here, my post was aimed at 123 too.

[WaldoMcFroog]

Ah, okay! ;-)

[123everton]

I fail to understand the hostility. If Darwen were alive he would wholeheartedly endorse the notion that his book is a theory as to the evolution of life on Earth. He did place a prameter that he felt would serve to disprove his theory, and that to this day neither that parameter nor his theory has been conclusively disproved. It's precisely because Darwen was humble enough to accept he may be wrong (or at least that there's a flaw in his reasoning)that I can describe his work "as a balanced and well thought out tome". Darwen was a Christian and remained so to his dying day, and he understood his theory better than anyone and it obviously caused no conflict in his mind. Darwen accepted the possibility of a "flaw" in his work, why can't you? For the record I don't view "The Origin Of Species" as "crap", I might'nt neccessarily agree with all it espouses. But that critique alone does not give me the right to disparage it. Nor would I (or have I) sought to do so. I agree with chakka, the invective was uncalled for, mutual respect should be shown for people of either view point.

[naomi24]

123, my post was not meant to come across as hostile, and my apologies if it did. However, whilst Darwin may have accepted the possibility that there may be a flaw in his theory, it seems those who believe in God's creation will not accept that there may be a flaw in theirs.

[WaldoMcFroog]

Again, Darwin was not a Christian when he died and again this is incredibly easy to check.

By his own account he was an agnostic.

How can you expect anyone to take your arguments seriously when they are so obviously flawed at such as basic level?

[China Doll]

Erm... well the theory of evolution to me seems to be a lot more... how can I put this... 'sensible' than the idea that each and everyone of us is related to Adam and Eve, one of whome was made in something I regularly add BBQ sauce to.

But each to their own.

[123everton]

China Doll, thankyou to each their own indeed.
In terms of Darwin being a Christian I saw it on a documentary on B.B.C.2 many years ago.
If they're wrong on that then I'm happy to concede then so am I. I trust your source will be in Darwins' own words.
I just wish people could debate the issues without resorting to condescenscion.

[naomi24]

123, This is interesting and includes quotes from some of his letters which throw a little light on the subject of his faith - or lack of it.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/07/da rwins_faith.html

[jake-the-peg]

When we examine the religious faith of early scientists it's worth remembering that in those days it publicly claiming to be an athiest was scandlous and could destroy your life or even get you locked up.

Take Charles Bradlaugh - elected MP for Northampton he refused to swear the parliamentary oath of allegience on a bible but asked to affirm, this was refused and when he attempted to take his seat he was arrested and briefly imprisoned in the Clock Tower.

They declared his seat vacant and held a by-election - guess who won? Chales Bradlaugh!

This started in 1880 and in 1886 he was finally allowed to affirm and become the first open athiest in parliament.

Now remembering that Darwin died in 1882 you have see that even had he been an athiest he'd probably have kept quiet about it.

I think Darwin was actually agnostic, a term invented by his friend Huxley

[Octavius]

Against the theory of creationism, the theory of evolution may provide some overwhelming evidence, but that does not mean that neither is flawed or questionable.

Darwin's theory has two aspects: the "historical phenomenon" that all species of living things are descended from common ancestors, and "the main mechanism causing that phenomenon," which is natural selection, all falling into biogeography, paleontology, embryology, and morphology.

What Darwin failed to recognise was the ability of species to interbreed (the Galapogos finches etc) and create separate species. Also, the Cambrian explosion, in which many of the major groups ("phyla") of animals appeared in a geologically short time with no fossil evidence of common ancestry - which Darwin himself considered a "serious" problem that "may be truly urged as a valid argument against" his theory. (not e he used the word theory)

It is actually morphology which Darwin himself called the 'very soul' of natural history, that provides the basis for the other three. In each category, similarity in morphology ("homology") is interpreted as evidence for evolutionary relatedness. According to Darwin, features in different organisms are homologous because they were inherited from a common ancestor through a process he called "descent with modification." But determining whether homology in living things comes from common ancestry or common design by simply pointing to the similarities themselves is relatively insufficient. Since whilst we can see the possibility that humans came from apes, what did the apes come from? Scientists are still looking for the �missing link�. He never really could explain the �Origin� of species. Some scientific conjecture is that the �origins� arrived from natural resources contained within comets from the Oort cloud that crashed into the earth many years ago. Another theory, but another one with claims/denials in the scientific world that we

[Octavius]

damn that AB word limiter thing�.

�.could argue until we know better.

[chakka35]

Waldo is, of course, right about the scientific use of the word "theory".
All scientific principles are theories - that is, they are the best explanation that we can give so far, the strength of the scientific method being that it can modify or discard any theory if new evidence comes along, unlike religion which forms dogmas then sticks stubbornly to them regardless.

Some theories have been with us for so long, make so much sense, are supported by such huge mountains of evidence and have never been contradicted by any other theory that it is reasonable, for all practical purposes, to regard them as truth.

Evolution is one such. And yes, (thanks naomi) I certainly have read Darwin, and many analyses of his work in the books of Dawkins and others.

But really, I'm genuinely curious to know what "flaw" blu3wave thinks he has found, and why he thinks that Darwin is "crap". Are you there, blu3wave?

[Octavius]

The main flaw, as I have tried to explain in very simple terms is that Darwin could not theorise on the ORIGIN, merely the �How Species Have Evolved And Changed Over Time�. Whilst his theory plugged a certain hole, it is only a very small part of a very big question.

Using the argument that creationism is rubbish because Darwinism is fact, doesn't really open out the prospect that all theories have flaws, may not be true and can by some sectors of society be called crap, on all sides of the fence, wheter scientific, relgious, beligerant or deluded.

[Whickerman]

I'm going to paraphrase Dara O'Briain on this subject. Did God create us in his image? Of course not. There are 2 arguments against it. 1.Look at yourself. 2.Biting the inside of your mouth when you're eating.
You're talking about the guy who supposedly came up with mountain tops and sunsets too. What kind of an off day...?

[ludwig]

Chakka's description of scientific theory is all true, which should make scientists the most open minded people in the world.

Despite this, the devout 'scientist' is often strangely similar to the religious zealot. You seem to get the same hostility from both ends of the spectrum when you have the audacity to question their 'truths'.

It's just an observation - call it a theory if you like.

[The Sherman]

how do neandethals sit in gods 'plan' ?

are they in the bible?