Wednesday, March 18, 2009

The "Science" of Evolution

What does the theory of evolution have to do with science? Does that sound like an odd question? Well, consider this: Science requires certain things before you may call something science.

For example, miracles. Science will never prove miracles happen. Because in order to qualify to be a "miracle," it must only happen on the extreme side of rare (more cases than not, they only happen once!).

So of course, you cannot do any sort of examination of a miracle, the only way to prove one happened, is to look at the after math of a miracle (ie someone being cured of cancer with out explanation). Even then, it takes faith to believe in such a thing.

So, what does it take for something to qualify as science? There are steps! These steps must be taken, and they are called "the Scientific Method!" This method calls for collecting evidence, creating a hypothesis, forming an experiment, are repeating the experiment 1 billion times... give or take.

Now then, back to evolution. But before I go on, let me explain what I mean by "evolution."
1. New species coming from others species (man from ape)
2. New life coming from nothing (idiocy)

Technically, evolution is not the latter (2), but for our purposes in this post, that's what I mean.

Okay, now to my point. There is little to no evidence of evolution. Many people interpret collected fossils as evidence of evolution, but I say (along with Bible believing scientists) that fossils point to a sudden appearance of all life coming on Earth at the same time!

But perhaps the most important negative for the "hypothesis" of evolution, is there are no experiments that can be repeated to prove or disprove it. Evolution has never been witnessed, and if it did ever happen (and happened also to be witnessed), it's so rare that it cannot be observed over and over again. Therefore, "evolution" must be reclassified as a miracle, which takes faith to believe in!

4 comments:

Brad said...

Paul, Paul, Paul...before deriding the science of evolution you would do well to actually read up on the subject...
First your oversimplification of the theory of evolution (man from ape, life from non-life) does no justice to your argument and only shows that you are either ignorant to basic biology or that you are assuming your audience is, which is both wrong and arrogant. Second, you're also wrong in that evolution has not been witnessed...indeed, it's seen on the microbiological level every day as bacterium and virii mutate to better adapt to their environments, also it is being witnessed on a grander scale currently in Tasmania, as Tasmanian devils, a victim of environmental changes, are beginning to adapt as females become fertile at an earlier age, thus ensuring their survival in what is now a harsher environment that does not allow them to reach full maturity. It is these small, subtle changes upon which the LAW of evolution is based upon, and the suggestion that because we haven't seen some new species magically appear only further shows your lack of understanding. Indeed, such an occurrence would be classified as a miracle since it's is not simply improbable, but impossible...

IF you wish to understand evolution, take biology 101...If you wish to remain arrogant continue reading whatever it is that gave you the inspiration to write this nonsense in the first place...

Mahalo
Brad

Paul said...

Brad, first let me say, thank you for posting, you are the first one ever! And second, you did not give your view on what evolution is, you simply said I was ignorant or arrogant. I'm pretty sure I have a good grasp on it. Bacteria and viruses do obviously change and adapt, but that hardly qualifies as witnessing evolution in life. Viruses are not alive, so there's nothing to say about that, and bacteria change, but it's not so dramatic as to say it's a new species or even a different kind of bacteria. The Tasmanian devil example you gave is natural selection, not the part of evolution I was referring to. It seem you only believe in natural selection and not an evolution that results in a creation of new species... so either we misunderstand each other, or we agree.

Paul said...

NOTE: Brad left this comment, it was edited to remove a curse word.

Natural selection is an aspect of the law of evolution...Once again Paul, I must say you definitely do not understand evolution. I can loan you my BIO 101 book if you need it...I can also loan you my copy of Dawkin's the Selfish Gene if you really wish to gain a deeper appreciation of the complexities of life. Also, I encourage you to look up the Miller-Urey experiments...deep [stuff] there...life from non-life and all that jazz...and you're welcome for the first comment :).

Paul said...

Well, I took your advice and looked up evolution, and came to the conclusion that you think my understanding of evolution is that one species, let's say an ape, suddenly gave birth to a new species, a person, without taking millions of years to change subtly.

This is not what I think. But if you still think I should look at your books, I would gladly read them.

And as a finial question, let me ask you this: Can you give me an example of a witnessed and studied mutation that was beneficial enough for a species to keep and breed into the population? Or even just a beneficial mutation at all?