Darwin Was Wrong! Inspired by the Plato was wrong thread.. As you know, darwin came up with the theory of evolution. But I feel that's he wrong... Observe. I'll be refering to this book: (Evolution: a theory in crisis." by Michael Denton) (Non-Religious) Organisms and watches are similar because both are complex and have many co-operating parts. But they differ also in many ways. For example watches are made of glass and metal, and organisms are not. This is not a relevant difference. Relevant for the validity of Paley's analogy are properties bearing on the questions 'Where did this object come from?' or 'How was it produced?'. The following properties are relevant for the validity of the watchmaker analogy: Watches don't reproduce Watches don't have heredity Watches don't have mutations Typical for artefacts, a watch is produced from raw materials by external forces. Watches don't self-assemble. Watches don't descend from other watches. There are no father and mother watches, no baby watches. Every single watch we encounter is necessarily produced by external forces because watches are unable to reproduce themselves. Obviously watches need a watchmaker! We know today that organisms reproduce and self-assemble on the basis of internal information (DNA). Watches don't have internal self-descriptive hereditary information. The instructions to manufacture a watch are located outside the watch, which explains why they cannot reproduce themselves. The properties reproduction and heredity tell us how living individuals come into existence. This is not a superficial difference, but a fundamental difference. To my surprise Paley proposed designed, self-reproducing watches (10) and concluded that his design inference was reinforced. He was right that self-reproducing watches are a more powerful design. And he was right that self-reproduction is not an 'ultimate' explanation, because self-reproduction was designed by the watchmaker and not by the watch itself. Now my point is that if self-reproducing watches are a more powerful design strategy, then creating the first form of life and let it evolve into all the million of species, is certainly a far more powerful design method. Furthermore, designing the laws of nature and creating the initial conditions of the Big Bang must be the most powerful creation method. Paley wrote his book before Darwin's Origin of Species. If he had known about natural selection, then only the religious dogma of the fixity of species (biblical 'special creation') could prevent that one species could originate from another species. And the whole point of his analogy was to prove a Designer without relying on revealed religious knowledge. (11)
Where exactly are you GOING with this anyway? You said Darwin was wrong, but then you just kinda...stopped. Anyway, as I mentioned in some other thread that i can't remember, even though it was less than an hour ago, i don't want to get into religion, evolutionism or creationism here. But now I will. (I swear I saw a mutated watch once ) I'm not even gonna get into the watches thing, 'cause i don't think it's a valid analogy. And now I forgot where I was going with this. Typical of me. I'll post again in a bit, when I've organised my thoughts a little.
I'm arguing that Darwin was wrong on the theory of evolution....it was not evolution, but creative design, that a greater being made everything in the world.
I don't think Darwin's theory has much, if any, logic to it in the first place. But, I'm pretty tired at the moment for anything to make much sence so I'll post some more a little later.
Little toes. That, in itself, supports Darwin's theory. It has been shrinking ever since we came down from the trees and started to walk upright. We no longer needed our toes for climbing, so they didn't have to be so long, so the little toe (and the others) started to think. One day we will have no little toe at all. How can you not agree that Darwin was, basically, right. I must admit to recently having a bit of a shock. There was a series on t.v. which said that 'Man' (in the broadest sense) simply didn't advance one jot in one million years, in spite of having a brain of a similar weight to the one we have now (at least some people other than me have it). Apparently the weapons he was using at the end of that time were exactly what he had been using at the beginning. Man has made real progress in the last 100 years - a mere pin-prick on the time evolution scale. That animals adapt to the circumstance in which they find themselves, or die out altogether, surely cannot be disputed?
Hmmm. I actually would have to say evolutionism and creationism are both wrong. If there is a God, who is to say he didn't start the evolutionary process? It makes much more sense to me that way.
Evolution is a limited event in any case. When the world comes to an end (ie our world) then evolution upon it stops. Those lives (presumably only ours?) that can escape to another planet may be able to continue but, mostly, life will stop. It had to start and it had to stop therefore it is better to travel than to arrive.
but evolution is flawed! Look at my watch example! Atoms simply do not come together by luck to form somethign!
well, there are some theories where evolution and creation are fused together like for example, God creates the world and lets the evolutionary process continue on its own...so i guess things werent this complicated before darwin...
I don't see why God would do that. Wouldn't He want it to be obvious who make the universe so people have proof that He exists?
True, they will adapt. But it doesn't mean that they're evolving. Take winter and summer for example. A person that is used to summer but isn't used to winter will be cold until their body gets used to the new change. Then, after time, their body will adapt to it and become more accustomed to the new environment. This is not evolution in the truest sense of the word. For another example, look at the dog species..over many years dogs have evolved into many different sizes, colors and breeds HOWEVER they are STILL dogs...they have not become cats or cows. Selective breeding has changed their characteristics but not the underlying creature.
I agree with Solid and Josh...I like his analogy of a watch because if I was walking along a beach, for example, and saw a basic, old-fashioned watch lying there I would never look at it and say, "Amazing how that evolved over time!" Yet, many people do that upon seeing a starfish or a crab washed ashore...but consider that the watch has maybe 8-10 working parts and cannot replicate but the animal has many times more the working parts that can repair and replicate! Many scientists who once embraced evolution have now changed their opinions to support Intelligent Design...The reason the Supreme Court told American schools that they had to start teaching Creationism alongside Evolution in the schools was because there was more proof for the former idea than the latter!!! If evolution were true then where is the creature that evolved into something totally new..in school I was taught that the horse was the "proof" that it had evolved from a small creature called Eohippus...well, that theory has been totally destroyed with the realization that Eohippus was a totally separate animal!! More amazingly is the fact that more and more scientific research is showing evolution to be fatally flawed and pointing towards Intelligent Design and a Creator, eg. research on amino acids, the basic building blocks of living things show that they could not have "evolved" as they are far too complex and intricate...
I take it we are talking about Charles Darwin, and not Erasmus Darwin, who was his grandfather and a doctor, I understand.
I happened to come across Erasmus in a book entitled The Encyclopaedia of British History. I understand that Charles Darwin picked up some of his material on the Galapagos, where there are most peculiar animals speciallya dapted to their circumstances. I came across that when I was doing a course for the Open University.
I think josh's analogy is completely irrelevant. Watches are not alive. Josh said it is not relavant. This (in my opinion, of course) is not true. They were created. We may have been also. Disregard where we came from for a moment. My point here is that Evolution IS possible, but a dog doesn't evolve into a cow or whatever. It is STILL a dog, it's just different. About where we came from. If let's say, a really, really long time ago, humans had hair all over, and walked similar to an ape, they would still be human They would just be less evolved humans. But they ARE. I'm not talking about one organism. One single creature does not adapt, per se. Take solid's analogy for example. Let's say a creature (not neccesarily human) lives in a very hot, humid, dry desert. If, over time, let's say, an ice age comes, turning the desert into a tundra in a few hundred thousand years (or so. ). The desendents of the creature will be better adapted to the cold climate than it's predecessor because of 'evolution' or adaptaion or whatever you want to call it. This takes into account that the creature survived the change of course. If it didn't adapt then obviously, it died. :dead: However, like I said above, this creature HAS evolved into a (better?) life-form, but it is STILL the same species.
For one million years 'Man' made no progress at all. He had a brain big enough to make progress, but he was using the same weapons to catch animals at the end of that period as he was at the beginning. Evolution is a natural thing, but it is not an automatic thing. It does not necessarily occur, and when it doesn't the thing that is not evolving might cease to exist. Things are changing all the time and if animals (including people) do not change with them then they will, in due course, be wiped out. It is quite simple, really.
