Evolution is a physical force. It is provable through scientific
experimentation. It can be seen in the breeding of dogs and horses.
It can be seen in the ability of viruses to become resistant to
anti-biotics. There are a million billion pieces of evidence to
support evolution as a physical force.
Micro or macro? There is a big difference. You are only speaking of
Whether "evolution" is totally responsible for the existence of life,
however, is much more complex. But evolution is still the likeliest
explanation. There are millions of pieces of fossil to support it.
There are almost none. The fossil record is not going to help argue the
theory of macro evolution.
Why the Missing Link Is Still Missing
The missing link - The fossil record vs.
the Charles Darwin theory of evolution
**Whoops. Old Charlie biy has fucked up in the title. Charles Darwin did not
propose the "theory of evolution". Charles Darwin wrote the Origin of
Species. His theory was that Natural Selection was the mechanism by which
Evolution operated. Of course, old Charlie (Colson) would not want to let
some actual FACTS get into his little piece of fiction, would he?
by Charles Colson
Email article to a friend
A store specializing in vintage political paraphernalia displays a
campaign button that reads, "Ronald Reagan is the missing link." It's a
joke that scientists can appreciate, because a century and a half after
Darwin, the missing links in the fossil record are still...missing. The
missing link is the big hole in Darwinism.
And a book by biologist Jeffrey Schwartz recommends ditching Darwin
altogether, and looking for a new explanation of how life developed.
The standard Darwinian theory is that new species arise by the gradual
accumulation of tiny mutations.
**Nope. That is ONE possible explanation. There are others.
The theory predicts that the fossil
record will reveal hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils linking
each species to the next one.
**Nope. Fossils form only under the most extraordinary circumstances.
But the fossil record shows no such thing. Instead, new species appear
suddenly--virtually overnight. As Schwartz puts it, fins turn into legs
suddenly, without a trail of intermediate forms. Similarly, he says, "You
don't see gradual evolution of feathers. You either have feathers or you
**You don't see a gradual evolution of feathers, for several reasons:
* Feathers do not survive fossilisation.
* Fossils are rare.
Even eyes appear out of nowhere. The Darwinian idea "that an eye evolves
slowly over countless generations through painstaking accumulations of
tiny mutations--that's wrong," Schwartz says.
* I don't believe that Darwin ever said such a thing.
* Rudimentary light sensitive organs are found on many animals.
* Animals which live underground often don't have eyes.
No wonder he entitles his book Sudden Origins. And no wonder he's in hot
water in the scientific community.
**Huh? Hot water? With whom?
Ever since Darwin, many biologists
have clung to the hope that the gaps in the fossil record would eventually
be filled in, the missing links discovered. But Schwartz is saying that
the gaps will never be filled in--because the missing links never existed.
He urges biologists to start searching for a new theory to explain the
sudden origins of organic structures.
**Biologists are ALWAYS searching for ways to explain evolution. That is the
nature of science. To question. It is the nature of fundies to accept abject
nonsense, from people who seek to exploit their stupidity.
Schwartz himself thinks that he has found such a theory based on the
action of so-called "homeobox" genes--regulatory genes that switch on and
off during the development of embryos. The theory is that even a small
mutation in a homeobox gene at early stages of development would lead to
major changes later on, as the organism grows.
But most biologists find Schwartz's theory implausible. "It seems a pretty
wild hypothesis," says biologist William McGinnis. Mutations in the
homeobox genes do result in drastically different forms within a species,
McGinnis says, but most often these animals die or are very sick.
You see, to originate a new species by mutations would require a huge
number of coordinated changes all at once.
**No, it would not.
A fish that suddenly develops
lungs, for example, had better develop legs at the same time or it will
**Are you familiar with Axolotls, or lungfish?
A giraffe that develops a long neck must at the same time
develop a specialized heart to pump blood up its long neck.
**Actually, the giraffe has specialised valves, to control blood flow
through its neck. More importantly, however, is that a giraffe has EXACTLY
the same number of vertebrae as a human. We are related species.
But in Schwartz's naturalistic theory, there's no directing force to
coordinate all those changes, so the new forms of life would go
nowhere--except to a graveyard.
Schwartz does do us a favor by pointing out the failure of Darwinism, but
his substitute theory of evolution is no better. Living things exhibit
levels of engineering and design that scientists are only beginning to
grasp--which logically suggests that they are the creation of a great
Engineer, a Divine Designer.
**Nonsense. Living things are not evidence of a "Divne Designer". Living
things are evidence of the power of the DNA molecule.
The theory that best fits the facts is one that starts with an intelligent
cause behind the wonderful complexity of living things
**Nope. The theory that best fits, is the one which looks at all the
On the other hand, "creationism" or "intelligent design" has virtually
no evidence whatsoever to support it.
That is simply untrue.
**An opinion you are entitled to.
more there than you could deal with in a lifetime
The only "evidence" is a bible
story, which may have even been a metaphor.
**Yes, true. None of the people who wrote the Bible had any scientific
My personal belief is that God was created by evolution.
Who made you then?
**I can't speak for the other respondent, but my parents made me. If you
know of another system, let us know.