Macro-Evolutionary Theory is filled with holes

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by aphexcoil, Nov 27, 2003.

  1. In our biology classes, we were taught the theory of evolution and how it works in our world. Evolution, according to Darwin, consists of such terms as "natural selection," "survival of the fittest," and "selective mutations" that basically mean that species will "evolve" and change to forms that are better equipped to master their environment.

    Well, I decided to look a little deeper into evolutionary theory and I was amazed to discover something very curious. When evolution is broken down, you have micro-evolution and macro-evolution. I will concur that a baby will inherit traits from both parents and that, in a small way, is a form of micro-evolution in process.

    However, how much evidence exists to collaborate the theory of macro-evolution? How many fossils have we found to connect us with apes and chimps? How many "bridge fossils" have we found for major species change among other animals? Absolutely none!

    Then consider this:

    It seems a bit odd to me that so many scientists have embraced evolution yet ignored some very important problems with it -- especially macro-evolution.

    I'm not suggestion that evolution isn't a possible theory to fit the observable world, but I just find it odd that any theory would have such weight attached to it when there is such a lack of observable evidence for it.
  2. I've made both Bio and Petroleum Engineering schools so I had a deep cursus with Evolutionary Theory from Embriology to Genetics and Geo-techtonics (creation of planet Earth) :D. The problem is not really there. The problem is that Evolutionary Theory is not enough to explain the probability of appearance of life of even the most ridiculous organism that is a virus with only 40 strings in ARN. So there should be something else and this something can involve a more deterministic process than pure randomness of Evolution and if one believe Wolfram

    "One of the most esteemed documents of modern paleontology is Stephen Jay
    Gould's doctoral thesis on shells. According to Gould, the fact that there are
    thousands of potential shell shapes in the world, but only a half dozen actual
    shell forms, is evidence of natural selection. Not so, says Wolfram. He's
    discovered a mathematical error in Gould's argument, and that, in fact, there
    are only six possible shell shapes, and all of them exist in the world.

    In other words, you don't need natural selection to pare down evolution to a few
    robust forms. Rather, organisms evolve outward to fill all the possible forms
    available to them by the rules of cellular automata. Complexity is destiny—and
    Darwin becomes a footnote. "I've come to believe," says Wolfram, "that natural
    selection is not all that important."

    The more sciences he probes, the more Wolfram senses a deeper pattern—an
    underlying force that defines not only the cosmos but living things as well:
    "Biologists," he says, "have never been able to really explain how things get
    made, how they develop, and where complicated forms come from. This is my answer.
    " He points at the shell, "This mollusk is essentially running a biological
    software program. That program appears to be very complex. But once you
    understand it, it's actually very simple."

    It's very similar to Stock Market problematic in fact where official theory pretends that Randomness of multiple agents which compete among them - Evolutionary theory - dictates Market Behavior whereas I affirm, through my model that it is an illusion, that there is a deterministic process that is not due to the multiple agents (I mean the MAJORITY of course that there are SOME agents that makes the market behaves like it behaves but it is not those officially theory focus upon). And to explain that I use in fact a genetic metaphore see Plectics: "The study of simplicity and complexity"

    "Information packing, transcription and alternative splicing"

    P.S.: nevetheless my model is not based on GENETIC MODELLING - it is based on ECONOMIC MODELLING - so it is only ressemblance of form with genetic, that is to say a sort of meta-fractality in modelisation.

  3. jem


    Evolution requires faith just like creationism. By the way there are many DNA researches that now reject the theories of evolution. There writings questioning its basic concepts are all over. I am not saying this means you have to believe in creationism, I am just saying if you do the research you will see that even Darwin by his own work would question evolution.
  4. to those in the know, evolution is already a fact.:cool:


    i must be crazy...
  5. jem


    GG- even dolts at pizza places after softball games argue for evolution. When everyone believes in one thing that thing should be questioned automatically. It is a premise that has served me well.

    Did you know that the theory that fingerprints are unique is actually b.s. And that fingerprint matching is a very subjective puesdo science. Question all commonly accepted thought.
  6. i would be the first to shake your hand for saying to question commonly accepted thought. you are preaching to the choir, but imo, you're a little hypocritical.

    if i'm not mistaken, i think you're religious. if there is anything commonly accepted that should be questioned, RELIGION IS IT. and with it, a lot of bs stems from it which still occurs today and impacts society and people like me who reject it. a perfect example is sex. what is the hang up in the usa with sex?! why is the human body viewed as bad? we want sex, but are ashamed to talk about it. IT STEMS FROM ADAM, EVE, AND THAT RIDICULOUS FAKE TALKING SNAKE CRAP.

    watch the news, they call scott peterson a "sex addict." who isn't a sex addict?! i'm a sex addict and proud of it. in nature, a strong libido is good for procreation. it is a desirable trait in nature, but in our pathetic society we view it as undesirable--probably due to ages of religious nonsense.
  7. Read a book by Michael Denton called "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" and you'll never view macroevolution in the same light again. Even if you're a diehard Darwinist, you'll see the incredible difficulties that must be overcome before it will be accepted by non-materialists.

    He is a microbiologist that documents the genetic and fossil difficulties associated with traditional evolution. He's got some great pictures that show the HUGE gaps that exist between in the standard vertebrate lineage that leads to man.

  8. True sex addicts are like drug addicts and are unable to control their sex drive, and the long term consequences of such an addiction is not pretty. Look at what it cost Bill Clinton.

    I don't think you really want to be in that class. It is nothing to be proud of.

    If you had ever been to an SLAA meeting (Sex and Love Addiction Anonymous) you would not be so cavilier with the term sex addict, as you would see the consequence and destruction that follows real sex addiction.

    The following link has info on sex addiction, and screening tests.
  9. jem


    gg I agree in a way- I said question everything-do not reject everything commonly accepted.

    However- amoung anyone who considers themselves well educated or intellectual, (at least in the northeast and california, I would say believing in a specific god is a sort of radical thing.
  10. maxpi


    Macro evolution is widely believed simply because it is taught from childhood in the schools. The venue for debate is owned by the higher education and publicly financed. Basically if somebody wanted to start an atheist school and debate openly they would be out of business in a decade. The only people that really have a reason to care about the issue are bible readers and they are kept out of the debate because their venue for getting ideas across is limited largely to their churches. There are large numbers of church goers that are educated somewhat in this debate and are not believers in macro evolution, not many people like that outside of churches probably, and that is because of the venue situation, not the veracity of any argument.

    If you want to see arguments against macro evolution you have to seek them out for yourself. You can search on Kent Hovind and get his lectures on CD and just settle in for some education. I know after watching his lectures a few times I get nothing but laughs from some of the ideas that "science" is teaching, it is just the biggest joke of all time, bar none.

    $25/$35 on ebay.

    Hovind has 160 IQ and a science teaching background, that is enough to prepare and present ideas intelligently. He's entertaining as well.

    #10     Nov 27, 2003