*More Creationist Nonsense*
Man's evolution from monkey a proven scientific fact? No, it's not
by Andrew Loke Ter Ern (Dr). Refutation by Author with lots of help from the scientific community.
Prove positive that a weak faith and dogma almost always invariable leads to psuedo-science. All comments prefaced with a >
I watched the show 'A Species Odyssey' on Channel NewsAsia on November 6 and was very concerned with the way the highly debatable theory of human evolution was presented as a fact.
> The theory of evolution as it stands is not debated. What is debated are the exact mechanisms and the important certain factors have over the other. This is a highly disingenuous and certainty terribly misleading. The only place where this debate is going on is political. Science has accepted it and will continue to accept it every single time an experiment is done and does not falsify the notion of evolution and common descent.
While micro-evolution, ie the process of mutation and natural selection, can be observed in nature and is a proven fact, macro-evolution - the theory that all the organisms we see today resulted from the micro-evolution of simpler pre-existing organisms, which ultimately came from non-living matter - is not a proven fact.
> If micro-evolution can occur, where's the magic barrier than prevents it from becoming macro-evolution. There can be sufficient changes within the gene pool such that one speicies can actually separate into two. Science does not stand still and for evidence of macro-evolution, check out TalkOrigins.org's 29+ Evidence for Common Descent and Evolution.
It is in fact contradicted by huge gaps in the fossil records as well as other theoretical considerations (see www.answersingenesis.org).
> Very very unsubstantiated assertions. But for more evidence, here's TalkOrigin.org's Fossil Hominds: The Evidence for Human Evolution. Or again here, Transitional Vertebrate Fossils. There have been missing links filled in but the problem with this is that everytime science comes up with another missing link they end up claiming that there are now TWO gaps.
Because of the evidence and theoretical considerations, many scientists have now repudiated the theory of macro-evolution (see, for example www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf), and the number is increasing despite the 'persecutions' by scientific establishments wishing to maintian their unwarranted naturalistic philosophy. (See Dr Jonathan Well's The Icons of Evolution, chapter 12).
> Nope. A close reading of the text shows that any scientist could in good faith sign that statement. It simply expresses doubt about Darwinism. Modern Evolution has long since passed that stage, we now know that Darwinism is incomplete because he did not have knowledge of Mandelean Inheiritance of genes. It did however, make the theory much much strong. But if it's just numbers you want, check out National Centre for Science Education's (NCSE) "Project Steve", which is a tongue-in-cheek parody of suchy lists. After all, scientists named "Steves" (which include Steven and Stephanie) make up about 1% of scientific populace, but even so, they have over 600 names down on a purposeful statement, which makes it effectively tens of thousands of Scientist who accept Evolution on an evidentiary basis.
We must note carefully that micro-evolution does not necessarily imply macro-evolution. Micro-evolution only implies that given enough time, living things may change as they adapt to the environment. For example, given enough time, apes may change.
> Again, where's the magic barrier?
But micro-evolution does not necessarily imply that all the living organisms that we see today originates from pre-existing organisms. For example, to say that apes may change given enough time does not necessarily imply that man did come from apes. Above all, micro-evolution does not explain how the RNA/DNA comes about in the first place. (See www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/TJ/ docs/tjv10n3_origin_life.pdf).
> So the absolute identical nature of DNA and RNA is just a coincidence? Nope, it's very very strong evidence of common descent i.e. we come from a common ancestor.
Paleontologists often construct the supposed intermediates between monkeys and humans with much imagination and subjectivity which resemble myth-writing. (See The Icons of Evolution, chapter 11). Many such constructions have in fact been proven false (eg the Piltdown man which deceived scientists from early 1900s to 1953), while the remaining ones are highly debatable (see www.answersingenesis.org).
> Very very bad book. The number of retutations are incredible but here's a taste at NCSE, here. And on what basis does he claim it to be debatable? Get me an evolutionary biologist that specialised in homind evolution i.e. a real expert and maybe I'll buy the argument.
People should not be given the idea that evolution from monkey to man is a proven fact of science when it is not and the media should not just present one side of the story without presenting the evidence and theoretical considerations that contradict it.
> Theoretical? More like theological. He's right in that it's not a proven fact of science. But it is such a cornerstone of science that ,"Nothing in biology makes sense outside of evolution". So convincing is the theory that scientist have effective accept it as fact. A theory is not guesswork or conjecture, much less a hypothesis. It is a framework with both descriptive and predictory power over existing facts. Again there is no controvesy about Evolution, it is a controvesy within it. And oh, Answer in Genesis believes that anything that's not in the Bible must be false, so any science that contradicts it must be wrong. A such they believe in a 6000-10000 year old Earth as well as a world wide flood that coincidentally just happened to arranged the fossils in a perfect geological strata by age.
While many books showing the fallacy of macro-evolution can now be found in bookshops and the National Library in Singapore (eg Dr Michael Denton's Evolution, a theory in crisis, Dr Michael Behe's Darwin's Black box), documentaries showing the fallacy of macro-evolution should also be shown on TV to let the public know the truth about our origin.
>Again, very very bad books and thoroughly discredited, just do a quick google. Especially Dr Behe on the witness stand of the Dover Trial. In fact, Dr. Behe rejects what every scientific organisation considers as a scientific theory. His definition of scientific theory is so broad that he admitted on the stand that Astrology would come under his definition. The origin he speaks about is of course a divine one, which means Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden I suppose. But of course, that's only one Genesis story. Genesis 2 has remarkable similarities to quite a few other creation myths.