Do You Accept Evolution as a Fact?

[BlkPaladin]

There is evidence but a lot of it questionable. First I want to say I don't believe in life evolution. The big bang theory is pretty good but it still leaves room to someone causing it. I'm not a young earth creationist who believes that the bible says the earth is a little over 6000 years old. It doesn't if you read the first two chapters of Genesis a few things become obvious. 1) The earth and universe where already in existence before the days began. 2) The word day is being used in it figurative sense. As brought out in the beginning of the second chapter when it referred the first seven days as a day. 3)While it wasn't made to be a scientific book, it is pretty accurate when it does touch on scientific things. The events in chapter one are supported by the fossils as to when they appeared. Also if you remember that these passages where originally written for farmers several 1000 years ago, the event is written in the view point as someone on the planet. So you can call me more of an intelligent design person, which most scientist believe in. (Time magazine had a survey where they polled scientist, 80% of them believed in some form of intelligent design, while only 20% where stanch evolutionists.)

To make it short you can disprove creationists using the bible, you can disprove prevailing scientific theory using science.


The fossil record doesn't support it, it still in trees instead of inter-tanged with no species to tie the trees together . (There are more bones but less entact "in between" specimens then in Darwin's time)

The genetic evidence is based on almost totally disproven ideas on DNA: The charts that show how closely the DNA is to each other is just based on less then 25% of the DNA map. Scientist use to think that 70-to-80% of DNA is vestigial and the only used DNA is the stuff that runs the cells. But the Human Genome Project has found that less then 1% of DNA is actually vestigial so the 99.9% closeness to chimpanzees is at least 24.9% since we would have to do complete genome mapping of other species to find out how they relate to humans.

The three drivers of evolution also have major faults and almost no empirical data via experiments to tie them together:
Natural Selection: Is the most recognizable tenets on which the entire argument of life evolution is built. Unfortunately while it is proven that it causes variations in individual species, it isn't proven to cause new species to arise. And there is now evidence that Natural Selection is a 2-way street. "Darwin's" birds, finches I think, have been being monitored since the early 20th century, and with the environmental changes that humans are making the traits that were once thought to be bread out of the birds are making their come backs.
Genetic Mutation: This is what scientist sell as the other important driver, unfortunately it has a major problem. With each genetic mutation the chances that resulting offspring will be able to pass on the trait falls, in other words the higher chance that the child will be sterile unable to have children. Every one remembers the fruit fly experiment, where you get blind flies if you breed them in the dark. The hole in the experiment is if you allow the experiment to continue, the flies will die out because of the population becoming sterile.
Species Interbreeding: This one was on the way out when I was in high school so it was only a footnote in the lesson. The premise is simple that a new species can be made by two different parents having a child across species lines. The problems with this is that even among familia members, there are cases of species being totally incompatible for breeding. (example Canidae: Foxes and other "dogs" are not able to mate successfully) And even when they are able to mate successfully there is a high chance you wouldn't be able to make a new line because the resulting child would be sterile. (example Equidae: Horse and Donkey to make a mule. Mule are all sterile so to get another you have to do the same cross breeding.)

The experimental empirical evidence ends before life begins. In the earily 1950's Stanley Millar ran an experiment that proved that amino acids, which are required for the foundation of life, could occur naturally. While there are poblems with the results of his experiement. (One is the ratio of right-to-left handness of the amino acids were 50/50 and in nature it is more along the lines of 20/80 on earth and in space, another is the basis of the expement was based on what they thought the earth was like back then but new evidence even puts that in question.)

They thought the next two steps would be simple, but almost 65 years later they have yet to have a successful experiment showing the next step from there. Because even though it sounds simple creating chains of amino acids to form simple proteins, unfortunately there ran into a scientific Zen riddle. "To create even the simplest of proteins you need other specialized proteins to exist." On top of that the problem is a chemical as well as a mechanical problem. Not only are proteins chains of amino acids, they are made of only one handiness of amino acids, and they have to be folded in a particular way. Without this step life evolution couldn't even happen.

In addition there is a problem with the mind set of scientists themselves. If you question standing reasoning when their is evidence you can and will be shunned as an 'extremist who has no right to call themselves a scientist'. A good example of this would be the Clovis first theory. I have a news paper clipping of this story. When Clovis First started to be the prevailing theory, he was rising questions on the discrepancies in the theory. And he was essentially black listed so he had troubles getting published which put his job at risk. Fast forward to the aughts, 2000's, and a big blow came that essentially destroyed the theory which put into doubt that the Clovis where first. So this should be a lesson even though a theory looks good has great evidence to back it up, it can be wrong, and scientist can be as bad, if not worse then religious zealots when it comes to free thinking.