RSS

Evolution, What Is It?

19 Jul
Evolution

Image from Google Images

What we have termed the ‘Theory of Evolution’, in order for it to be considered a viable theory, it must begin somewhere and with something occurring for the very first time. Therefore, I believe we must first consider cosmic evolution, which is the origin of time, space and matter, or, in other words: what we refer to today as the ‘Big Bang!’ What did it evolve from or perhaps, stated another way, what exploded? Where did it come from, since space did not exist prior to this event; and where did it explode to, since space was born at the same time as everything else?

Proceeding on from the Big Bang, we must at this point think about chemical evolution. The Big Bang apparently made hydrogen, but how did the other elements arise. We have 92 natural elements, but the theory accounts for only hydrogen. Shortly afterward helium appeared, but the theory doesn’t say how. That’s only two elements. How did the other 90 chemicals evolve? Wouldn’t that have had to occur, and, if so, how did it occur? We have 21 synthetic elements, i.e. they are made in laboratories. Why didn’t they naturally evolve along with the other 91 known natural elements from single element hydrogen produced in the Big Bang? Is there a good explanation?

Next we would have to include stellar evolution. How did the stars and planets evolve? Remembering that all we have to begin with is hydrogen, how did the stars and planets originate. No one has ever seen a star or planet form. Did they evolve? They must have according to the theory, but how? Our own Earth seems to be an anomaly in our solar system. Where did Earth come from? There is nothing in our solar system, including our sun that could account for our Earth’s creation. How did our earth evolve, and from where?

Next we come to organic evolution, or as some call it: abiogenesis. How did life originate from non-living matter? “Long, long ago and far, far away…” life would have had to originate for the first time. How did it occur? It would have to occur for biological evolution to be a viable theory. In other words, life (uncreated) would have had to come from none living material. No one has ever seen that occur, nor has anyone ever accurately explained how it could have occurred. There are a lot of very difficult (unanswerable?) questions regarding this theory, but the real problem is that many folks seem to want to set this aside, accept the theory as fact, and move on. We are even told (intimidated?) to question the theory is ridiculous, boarding on insanity:

“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet someone who claims not be believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked,)”[1]

At last we come to Darwin’s The Origin of Species. Once we have life on the planet, how did macro-evolution occur? How does one kind of animal change into another kind of animal, or from one species into a new species? No one has ever seen this happen, i.e. we cannot observe it going on presently, nor can we find anything in the fossil record that would present clear evidence that one species was changing or actually changed into another, different, species. In short we have absolutely no real scientific evidence to support macro evolution.

Finally, we come to the single segment of what is embraced as true in the theory of evolution that has any legitimacy of being called scientific, and it is called microevolution. Another name for it might be breeding, whether by “natural selection” or done through human supervision. We can add to this adaptation whereby variations within the species are triggered in the DNA that permits the animal or bird or even a plant to adapt better to its environment (but it must already be in the DNA to be a possibility at all). Variations within kinds do occur, but only this part of what is called organic evolution has been observed by man (scientists) and could show clear evidence to support its validity. Animals produce a variety of offspring, but the offspring are always the same kind or species as the parent.

This is the theory of evolution as it is believed and taught today in all our state funded schools. This is what I shall be discussing in the next few blog posts. I welcome your comments.


[1] Richard Dawkins Put Your Money on Evolution; New York Times, April 9 1999; page 35.

Advertisements
 
7 Comments

Posted by on July 19, 2013 in ideology, theory of evolution

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

7 responses to “Evolution, What Is It?

  1. Antoine N. Soto

    July 20, 2013 at 13:11

    Yes. Just as the tree of life illustrates, all organisms, both living and extinct, are related. Every branch of the tree represents a species, and every fork separating one species from another represents the common ancestor shared by these species. While the tree’s countless forks and far-reaching branches clearly show that relatedness among species varies greatly, it is also easy to see that every pair of species share a common ancestor from some point in evolutionary history. For example, scientists estimate that the common ancestor shared by humans and chimpanzees lived some 5 to 8 million years ago. Humans and bacteria obviously share a much more distant common ancestor, but our relationship to these single-celled organisms is no less real. Indeed, DNA analyses show that although humans share far more genetic material with our fellow primates than we do with single-celled organisms, we still have more than 200 genes in common with bacteria. It is important to realize that describing organisms as relatives does not mean that one of those organisms is an ancestor of the other, or, for that matter, that any living species is the ancestor of any other living species. A person may be related to blood relatives, such as cousins, aunts, and uncles, because she shares with them one or more common ancestors, such as a grandparent, or great-grandparent. But those cousins, aunts, and uncles are not her ancestors. In the same way, humans and other living primates are related, but none of these living relatives is a human ancestor.

     
    • Eddie

      July 20, 2013 at 16:46

      Greetings Antoine, and thank you for reading and for your comment. It is always a pleasure to discuss what I’ve written with someone who has taken the time and effort to read by blog.

      Yes. Just as the tree of life illustrates, all organisms, both living and extinct, are related. Every branch of the tree represents a species, and every fork separating one species from another represents the common ancestor shared by these species.

      Actually, the “tree of life” is inferred by the theory of evolution. To argue that the theory of evolution is true because it is proved by the connected branches of the ‘evolutionary tree of life” (which merely illustrates the evolutionary argument) would posit a circular argument.

      For example, scientists estimate that the common ancestor shared by humans and chimpanzees lived some 5 to 8 million years ago. Humans and bacteria obviously share a much more distant common ancestor, but our relationship to these single-celled organisms is no less real.

      You are presuming the theory of evolution is true in order to make the argument of “time” needed to get from one species to another. Actually, the theory is only a model to account for the “origin” of specific life-forms. The “creation model” is just as valid.

      I have argued in previous blog posts showing that the tenets of the “theory of evolution” are thousands of years old and represent an ideology and not science. The foundational argument of the theory is no more ‘scientific’ than Christianity is. Both are ideologies expressing opposing worldviews.

      Indeed, DNA analyses show that although humans share far more genetic material with our fellow primates than we do with single-celled organisms, we still have more than 200 genes in common with bacteria. It is important to realize that describing organisms as relatives does not mean that one of those organisms is an ancestor of the other, or, for that matter, that any living species is the ancestor of any other living species.

      Concerning similarities, this argument is just as valid to point to a common ‘creator’ as it would be for a common ancestor. For example, in the field of forensics, we often find that ‘similarities’ in the manner in which several people have been murdered point to a single rather than multiple murderers.

      I’ll be discussing biological evolution at greater length in the near future, but it is largely agreed among evolutionists, themselves, that all the intermediate life-forms on the evolutionary tree are ‘inferred’. Nothing has been proved. So, whether we are speaking of the tenets of evolution or the tenets of religion, we are speaking of ideology. We tend to **interpret** science according to our own ideology—whether naturalistic or religious. Perhaps the only way we are able to identify which is true is by considering which is more plausible. I hope you stick with me throughout this series, and I invite what comments you consider desirable to make.

       
  2. prettytalkative angel51

    July 19, 2013 at 18:19

    I have been puzzled all this time concerning those who wear their pants so low. Now I get it! :-)

     
    • Eddie

      July 19, 2013 at 18:30

      I couldn’t resist having a little fun. Thanks for stopping by.

       
  3. Elva Horne

    July 19, 2013 at 13:17

    The species is the most fundamental unit of classification. This is a group of organisms which are close enough in their evolutionary relationship to be capable of successful reproduction and having fertile offspring.

     
    • Eddie

      July 20, 2013 at 16:49

      Greetings Elva, thanks for reading and for your comment.

       

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: