Errors in the theory of evolution

[fantome profane]

What a lot of people don’t know is that Darwin in his time actually argued in favour of blended inheritance as the main way in which traits were passed on, even though it was pointed out to him that this would not work with his theory. He also believed that inheritance of acquired characteristics was possible.

It really wasn’t till his theory was combined with genetics (Mendelism) that Darwinism took on its full explanatory strength.

 

[lunamoth]

What a lot of people don’t know is that Darwin in his time actually argued in favour of blended inheritance as the main way in which traits were passed on, even though it was pointed out to him that this would not would with his theory. He also believed that inheritance of acquired characteristics was possible.

It really wasn’t till his theory was combined with genetics (Mendelism) that Darwinism took on its full explanatory strength.

Yes, he recognized that traits were heritable but he did not have an explanation for how.

 

[gnostic]

Let's look at this way.

We know that computer, comprised of many electronic components. But part of that included the software side, which more useful to us people. Companies who make these electronic components and software, are continuing to improve on them.

That's just like science, and in this case, about the science of Evolution; the new evidences not only improve our knowledge on Evolution, but as Jayhawker Soule have stated earlier, confirmed that the theory is fact. In any case, there's always room for improvement.

 

[doppelganger]

I haven't read what Lamarck wrote, only textbook material on the matter. Darwinism as presented in those same texts, without genetics, always seemed a much more compelling and satisfying explanation. In fact the genetic revolution obscured the field of understanding for a time I had read.

The problem was that Lamarck proposed a mechanism that was plainly not workable. Take that away, and Darwin really didn't substantially change the basic idea - though the concept of very gradual change over incredibly long periods of time was an important addition. In principle, Lamarck was correct. An organism interacts with its environment and depending on its success it does pass traits to the next generation. It's the how where Lamarck is looked back on with a little ridicule in the paragraph right before the discussion of Darwin in most textbooks.

 

[painted wolf]

Lamarck also believed in directionality with humanity as the ultimate goal... ie, chimps wanted to eventually become a race of man.

Now, to the OP. As a biologist keenly interested in evolutionary science (working toward that as my future career) I have yet to see any profound problems with evolution.

Are there areas that could use more research? Absolutely. But then there are still aspects of the theory of Gravitation that still need more research. That is the way science works, every answer opens up opportunity for more exploration.
That is part of why I'm excited to be a scientist.

wa:do

 

[rojse]

To those of you who said that the theory of evolution is now a fact, think again. According to a history book supported by many archaeologists, " The idea that man evolved or developed is only a theory, not a positive science fact. It is full of gaps,especially with regards to the "missing link"

I suppose evolution is only a theory in the same way that gravity is only a theory.

 

[rojse]

ignorance is bliss.

Until the truck hits you from behind.

 

[Father Heathen]

Yap. Besides, it's still just a theory that needs to be proven.

Gravity, too, is "just a theory".

 

[Women_Of_Reason]

Gravity, too, is "just a theory".

Sex is just a theory to. Prove to me that it isin`t God that guides the sperm cell to the ovary.

 

[Renji]

Well I can see that there a lot of beliefs on this thread.
I said that the theory of evolution is just a theory. But after researching my science reference, some scientists, specifically the biologists believe that it is a fact. Therefore, I will accept the theory as a theory and a scientific fact(as some biologists concluded). Sorry for those people whom I answered " Theory of Evolution is just a "broad" theory" I do accept my mistakes. However, many scientist have different beliefs in this issue too (you will be the best judge for their beliefs). For instance:

"There is a widespread misconception that good theories grow up to be facts and that the really good ones finally become laws. But these three categories of scientific description are neither directly related nor mutually exclusive. It often occurs that a single natural phenomenon can be described in terms of a theory, a fact, and a law -- all at the same time!

In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory."


By Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D.

[FONT=&quot]"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [[FONT=&quot]Erlangen[/FONT][FONT=&quot] zoologist].

[/FONT][/FONT]
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson. Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].



"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France]


[FONT=&quot]"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Darwin[/FONT][FONT=&quot] said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity . . "Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts."—*G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle [/FONT]

 

[Nessa]

It's always amusing when creationist say, It's just a theory as if that discredits evolution. There is a big difference between the definition of theory and a Scientific Theory. A Scientific theory is so much more than an abstract belief in something.

From Answers.com

1. 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Biological Evolution is an accepted Scientific fact. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory based on that fact and many other facts and observations. When a creationist ignores accepted facts to belittle Darwin's, they are showing little or no understanding of Biological Evolution.

 

[Renji]

It's always amusing when creationist say, It's just a theory as if that discredits evolution. There is a big difference between the definition of theory and a Scientific Theory. A Scientific theory is so much more than an abstract belief in something.

From Answers.com
Biological Evolution is an accepted Scientific fact. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory based on that fact and many other facts and observations. When a creationist ignores accepted facts to belittle Darwin's, they are showing little or no understanding of Biological Evolution.

And the next step in the theory is a law.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And the next step in the theory is a law.

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[Renji]

This a forum. Everyone is free to express ideas. Expressing an idea isn't embarrassing oneself.. End of the story..

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This a forum. Everyone is free to express ideas. Expressing an idea isn't embarrassing oneself.

Actually, sometimes it is ... :yes:

 

[darkendless]

This a forum. Everyone is free to express ideas. Expressing an idea isn't embarrassing oneself.. End of the story..

Jay has a tendency to try and put everyone down. Its his way of telling you that you're looking at things the wrong way.

 

[Renji]

Re post:

Well I can see that there a lot of beliefs on this thread.
I said that the theory of evolution is just a theory. But after researching my science reference, some scientists, specifically the biologists believe that it is a fact. Therefore, I will accept the theory as a theory and a scientific fact(as some biologists concluded). Sorry for those people whom I answered " Theory of Evolution is just a "broad" theory" I do accept my mistakes. However, many scientist have different beliefs in this issue too (you will be the best judge for their beliefs). For instance:

"There is a widespread misconception that good theories grow up to be facts and that the really good ones finally become laws. But these three categories of scientific description are neither directly related nor mutually exclusive. It often occurs that a single natural phenomenon can be described in terms of a theory, a fact, and a law -- all at the same time!

In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory."


By Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D.

[FONT=&quot]"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [[FONT=&quot]Erlangen[/FONT][FONT=&quot] zoologist].

[/FONT][/FONT]
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson. Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].



"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France]


[FONT=&quot]"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Darwin[/FONT][FONT=&quot] said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity . . "Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts."—*G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle [/FONT]

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I said that the theory of evolution is just a theory. But after researching my science reference, some scientists, specifically the biologists believe that it is a fact. Therefore, I will accept the theory as a theory and a scientific fact(as some biologists concluded). Sorry for those people whom I answered " Theory of Evolution is just a "broad" theory" I do accept my mistakes.

I'm rather impressed - really. We can discuss later what it means that some scientists reject widespread scientific consensus, but for now: well done.

 

[Women_Of_Reason]

And the next step in the theory is a law.

Did you know that facts and laws are not scientifically interesting... Do you know why?

Because they don`t explain anything!

Theories explain things. Facts and laws don`t, they are just data.

So don`t you start saying that theories are not important because they are not facts or laws... They are much more than that.

They do what laws can`t do. They do what facts never did: They tell us how things works.

The theory of evolution tells us how the fact of evolution works.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm curious about something, Lawrence. How do you explain the paleontological evidence?