Saturday, 22 November 2008

"Evolution Fails Much"

Found a really rather annoying 'essay' over on DeviantArt - couldn't help myself, I ranted.

Ok - I just found this, so bear with me if you've already been ranted at a few times.

You: How about the fossil record then? The only proof that Evolutionists can turn to?

Firstly - Fossils are NOT the only evidence, we also have genetic evidence. Even if we failed to find a single fossil anywhere, the genetic evidence alone would support the theory of evolution.

You've heard of the 'tree' I take it? Well, using the genetic evidence, you get EXACTLY the same structure as the fossil tree.

There are others, y'know, go look em up.

You: the evolutionists leave out many of the fossils, only picking out those that support their theory

No they don't, and again, no they don't.

If there was a single fossil found that falsified the theory of evolution, the entire theory (as well as all scientific applications of the theory - including all of genetics and medicine, to name but two) would be reviewed and dropped.

Almost all sciencetific understanding would need to be reviewed and modified.

So basically, if a Creationist wants to cause evolution some damage, all they have to do is find a SINGLE fossil or living creature that doesn't fit with the theory.

So far, absolutely every known creature, alive or dead, fits with the theory.

You: Even Darwin saw it didn't hold any proof of how life came about

True. But you know what? Evolution is the theory of diversification of species, NOT the 'theory of how life started'. There is a pronounced difference.

If you want to know how life started, talk to a chemist and perhaps a physicist. The evolutionary theory is about what happend to life AFTER IT WAS THERE, not how it happened.

You: Another thing that evolutionists won't mention to you is the sudden burst of complex life found in the Cambrian layers of rock.

Wrong. This is a fascinating period in the evolution of life - why wouldn't they talk about it? I love looking at the wierd and whacky things that came out of the Cambrian period.

I'm sure if you actually did some research, you'd find hundreds of papers about them and as many people interested in the period.

You're also forgetting that the Cambrian period is between 5 and 10 million years long - short on a geological/evolutionary timescale, certainly, but in reality quite a long time. Wouldn't you say?

One of the best theories about the explosion was a rapid adaptation to shifts in habitat, caused by environmental factors (by, you know, the continental shift - sure you've heard about that somewhere - right?)

Selective pressures and new habitats - as well as a diversification of environmental niches - meant that a lot of speciation and diversification could happen within the lifeforms.

And by the way - do you want to go out and find some fossils that are about, oh I dunno, 545 million years old? Because that's about how long ago the PRE-Cambrian period was.

It's hard enough to find recent fossils - because, y'know, normally when something dies, the body tends to be eaten, torn up, thrown about a bit and you end up with bits of body all over different places. In fact, bones even tend to get eaten (if there are any!) so finding anything even resembling a partial skeleton in the fossil record is as rare as hell.

Can you imagine how hard it is for something without bones to fossilize? And then survive millions of years for us to dig it up?

But guess what? We still have loads anyway. Certainly more than enough to ' prove beyond resonable doubt' that the Theory of Evolution is correct.

You: the 1974 Encyclopædia Britannica answers

Pardon? You're using the 1974 edition? No wonder you're having problems, mate.

You: Can it tell us any more about the arrival of the vertebrates? ... Again, the fossil record is strangely silent.

'Strangely?' Do I need to go, again, into how hard it is for a fossil to even form? And survive millions of years, intact enough for us to dig it up and analyse it?

And actually, we know how the vertebrates started, how it happened. We even have some specimins still around (as in, still alive) - not the original species of course, but ones that didn't 'need' to change too much. So you're just plain wrong again. Look it up.

You: Why is the fossil record so full of 'completed' lif forms, and completely devoid of the 'evolving' stages.

What the hell are you on about? Every single creature is evidence of evolution. You appear to misunderstand the actual process. Every creature is of course a 'complete' creature! For goodness sake, you do not get half-this-half-somethings, that goes agaisnt everything.

Evolution is tiny, tiny changes over huge amounts of time. Eventually those tiny changes lead to the emergence of new and seperate species.

The only analogy I can come up with that you may understand is that of watching a baby grow up over a period of two or three years.

Take a single photograph every day, for those three years - and at no point will you be able to pinpoint the exact moment the child stops being a baby and becomes a toddler - but take the photograph from the beginning and compare it to the end one, and the differences will be enormous!

I get so annoyed at Creationists yelling about 'transitional' fossils - THEY ARE ALL TRANSTIONAL >>



You: Evolution happening now?

YES, evolution is happening now, and it has been doccument many times - the most famous of which was the lizards researchers moved to the island Pod Mrcaru - in just under four decades, there were astounding differences between the original lizards and the 'new' lizards.

You: Resemblance is no proof

I'm beginning to get tired of you and your silly rambling now - you're not even worth the facepalm. Seriously.

You: If in school evolution were taught as a theory only, and creation acknowledged as an alternate that has scientific backing, then the contradiction in the child’s mind might be eased.

Evolution may be called 'the THEORY of evolution' - but it is in fact, FACT. You seem to miss that in scientific understanding, a Theory is basically the top of the food-chain.

Now, if it was still only a HYPOTHEISIS, you may have some grounds for complaining about it - but it isn't and you don't.

Unfortunately, you also seem unable to grasp that there is NO scientific backing for Crationism. You want to know why this is?

Because the whole hypothesis boils down to GODDIDIT. And GodDidIt is not a hypothesis, it is an unfounded, religious assertion. There is NO science to back up the belief that a magical man in the sky clicked his fingers and everything poofed into existence.

You also appear to believe that there is some confusion over all of this. I'm sorry to tell you, but the only confusion is in the minds of those who have been indoctrinated into an ancient, tribalistic belief system that is both outdated and unnecessary.

You: ...there is no evidence at all that we evolved, and a lot to disprove it, so who really has the right to call who closed minded.

Wrong on so many levels. There is every evidence that we evolved, and no evidence for your 'Creator God'.

You seem to miss that, actually, scientists are very open-minded. They have to be. The Peer Review system, however, means that thigns need to be rigorously tested, modified and re-tested before any new theory will be accepted - which is probably why people are still under the misapprehension of science's 'close mindedness'.

You: After making a careful analysis of both sides I have seen that it is clear cut that evolution is not science fact, but science fiction.

You have done no such thing. You have picked up one or two articles by Creation Scientists (from the looks of it) and misunderstood anything written by Real Scientists. You have ignored swathes of evidence, belittled others and basically taken an incredibly pompous and annoying view of things.

It is not 'clear cut that evolution is ... science fiction' at all.

I started out writin this thinking it would be amusing to prove you wrong on every level, but towards the end there I just began to despair of you - seriously! How can you be so blinded? In this day and age!?

For goodness sake, actually go and do some real research, read some real papers on the subject, read 'The Blind Watchman' or 'The Ancestor's Tale'!

*shakes head* Ah well...

1 comment:

Jorgon Gorgon said...

That's what happens to me, usually, and why I seldom involve myself in such arguments. It seems to be rather futile: only those that actually do not want to accept the overwhelming evidence choose not to accept the evolutionary account. Since it is a choice rather than ignorance, arguing with them is often pointless. Might as well skip right to the name-calling stage and let them act all hurt.