Falsehood! 236761
What evidence would convince you that evolution is false? If no such evidence exists, or indeed could exist, how can evolution be a testable scientific theory?

In the theory of evolution, organisms gradually transform as the result of purely material factors such as natural selection and random genetic changes. What would it take, therefore, to refute such a theory? Darwin sidestepped this question, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case." Although Darwin seems to be opening evolution up to criticism in fact he is doing the opposite. He is protecting evolution from all effective challenges and rendering it untestable.

How could it be proved that something could not possibly have been formed by a process specified no more fully than as a process of "numerous, successive, slight modifications"? the burden is on Darwin and his defenders to demonstrate that ta least some complex orgasn we find in nature really can possibly be formed in this way, that is, by some specific, fully articulated series of slight modifications.

It’s important here to see the big picture. The evolutionist Haldane, when asked what would convince him that evolution was false, replied that finding a rabbit fossil in pre-Cambrian rocks would do quite nicely. Such a fossil would, by standard geological dating, be out of sequence by several hundreds of millions of years. Certainly such a finding, if rigorously confirmed, would overturn the current understanding of the history of life. But it would not overturn evolution.

Haldane’s rabbit is easily enough explained as an evolutionary convergence, in which essentially the same structure or life form evolves twice. In place of a common underlying intelligent design, evolutionists invoke evolutionary convergence whenever confronted with similar biological structures that cannot reasonably be traced back to a common evolutionary ancestor.

You might be asking, why is it important to ask these questions? Well, In the book "The Right Questions"the prominent evolution-critic Phillip Johnson shows how the pursuit of truth requires the unmasking of falsehoods, whats more, he points out that falsehoods are unmasked only by knowing where to probe and what questions to ask.. because the truth about biological origins is so important, ultimately defining our place in the universe, truth demands that we ask the right questions about Darwin and evolution.

Evolution has become an ideology, and the one thing that ideologies fear is exposure, thats why evolution forbids certain lines of questioning.. but the questions needs to be asked, too much is riding on evolution for it to escape proper scrutiny.

Falsehood! 236828
אם תחטט בין אלפי התגובות למאמר תמצא שהנושא נדון כאן. נסיונות להצביע על איברים ומערכות שכביכול לא יכולים להתפתח ע"י שינוי הדרגתי נעשים כבר כמאה וחמישים שנה, החל מטענות כאלה לגבי העין ועד ה "irreducible complexity" של בהה ("Darwin's Black Box") ואחרים. כולם כשלו, אבל עובדה שהם נעשים שוב ושוב כך שהתיאוריה הדארויניסטית אינה חסינה מפני הפרכה.
המשכפלים החדשים. 236868
"אם תחטט בין אלפי התגובות למאמר תמצא שהנושא נדון כאן" - אתה נותן יותר מדי קרדיט לעצלנים.

עוד לא למדת לזהות מתי עצלן כרוני פשוט עושה copy-paste מאיזה אתר אחר באינטרנט וחושב שהוא מעלה טיעון חדש ומעניין?

חלק מהטקסט מגיע ישירות מפה (מילה במילה):
חלקים אחרים ממקומות נוספים.
המשכפלים החדשים. 236905
אה, את דמבסקי (בעברית זה נראה יותר טוב) אני מכיר אבל באמת לא זיהיתי את הטכסט.
ראש(ית) העין 467111
(דגדגן: "What this research shows is that 400 million years ago there was already a complex eye, and one that was an intermediate form between jawless and jawed vertebrates")

חזרה לעמוד הראשי המאמר המלא

מערכת האייל הקורא אינה אחראית לתוכן תגובות שנכתבו בידי קוראים