5 Flaws In The Theory of Evolution

5 Flaws In The Theory of Evolution November 11, 2014

What are 5 flaws in the theory of evolution?   Why do these flaws make it difficult to believe in the theory of evolution?

Flaws Not Taught

Unfortunately, evolution is taught as an absolute fact.  It is sad that public education doesn’t reveal the weaknesses in this theory.  They refuse to show the roaring silence of evidence of the transitional fossils.  They decline to state that such random mutations cannot possibly increase an organism’s capabilities.  They fail to say how such complexities of life forms could have occurred by random chance or blind luck.  They don’t reveal the impossibility of life developing on its own.  They ignore the fact that spontaneous generation has never been proven and in fact is a concept ridiculed by biologists. The theory of evolution doesn’t have any real idea on how life arose. Evolutionists readily admit that the theory of evolution doesn’t address the question of how life arose but only how it evolved once it did arise.  If you were to teach anything else in the public schools without having concrete evidence it would be confined to philosophy where pure conjecture, speculation, and hypothetical assumptions would be discussed. How evolution is thought to be factual without lines of evidence it simply astounding.

The Lack of Transitional Fossils

When we hear about certain the discovery of “missing links” from time to time I ask “How can a missing link mean anything when the entire chain is missing?”   What good is finding a missing link when we should expect to find millions upon millions of them and that a specific chain of transitional fossils could be established showing one specie evolving into another?  Instead, they find fossils mislabeled as “missing links” that are in reality either a newly discovered species or a now-extinct species.  They find one fossil and try to make it into the crucial missing link when there isn’t even a transitional chain in which to fit this supposed missing link into.  A missing link means nothing when there is no line of evidence in the form of transitional fossils that can show us a gradual change of one species into another, new species.  Public school and college textbooks have to depend on graphs, drawings, and computer images to fill in these enormous missing spaces.   There are billions of fossils on or under the earth and hundreds of millions of living and now extinct species, yet there is not one single set of transitional fossils that clearly show one specie evolving into another or different species, therefore a lack of transitional fossils is, to me, a fatal flaw in the theory of evolution.

The Origin of a Species

Sadly, evolutionists do not include as part of the theory of evolution the answer of how life arose in the first place.  I have heard many say that life had to arrive from outside of the earth but doesn’t this just push back the question?  If life did come via an extraterrestrial source then how did that life arise?  How could life have arisen where it was supposed to have come from?  Either way, we have no scientific evidence that life can arise spontaneously.   There have been multiple experiments over many years where scientists and/or biologists have tried to create a life form, even at the microscopic level, and time after time have failed miserably.  Can life be generated from non-life or inorganic matter?  The Law of Biogenesis states that life only comes from previously existing life.  Spontaneous generation is now an obsolete theory on the origin of life.  Even the more modern hypothesis called abiogenesis in which life is believed to have arisen over a time span of millions of years has never had any subsequent evidence to prove this is true.  That’s why this topic is sometimes called “The Elephant in the Living Room.”  It’s too big it miss and it’s so obvious but it’s still wantonly ignored.

The Complexity of Life

To believe that the information contained in DNA/RNA simply happened by random luck or blind chance is to believe that you can throw a stick of dynamite into a printing factory and come out with the U.S. Constitution.  Information infers intelligence.  To believe that eons of time could, on its own, create information is to give time the power to create.   Although Neo-Darwinism necessitates that mutations must generate new information, not once have any mutations ever been observed where they created new and more complex organism that theorists of evolution see as necessary.  Instead, genetic mutations, from the microscopic level, up to the animal or mammal levels, have resulted in less efficient DNA/RNA information and instructions and more often than not, produced mutations that are fatal or harmful to the organism.

The Cosmological Argument

Here is something that makes believing in the theory of evolution hard to accept.  It is what is called the Cosmological Argument.   This argument goes back thousands of years ago where it was Plato who believed that the Cosmos had to have had an “imparted motion” and must have required a “self-originated motion.”  Thomas Aquinas’ conceived the idea that the universe had a First Cause which he believed to be God, Who Himself is uncaused.  William Craig gave us the general form of the Cosmological Argument as such:

  1.   Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
  2.   The Universe began to exist.
  3.   Therefore, the Universe had a cause. [1]

For example, Craig said that “The first question which should rightly be asked” is what G.W. L. Leibniz wrote “Why is there something rather than nothing?” [2] R.C. Sproul of Ligonier Ministries once said that “If there was ever a time that nothing existed then nothing would exist now.”  Since we know something now exists there must have been something that existed prior to this something.  What in the physical universe did not have a beginning?  What in the universe is eternal?  What in the universe will not have an ending?  To believe that the universe is eternal seems to go against conventional thought that the universe had a specific time and starting point or place like taught in the Big Bang theory.  To believe that all that there is now was a result of time + chance + space = everything is attributing causative power to time or to chance or to space (nothingness).   It’s like saying 0 + 0 + 0 = everything!   Chance has no power as it is not a thing…or nothing in the sense that it is not physical and we know that nothing cannot produce or create something…even a little something.   Having a 30% of rain does not cause rain to occur.  Rain depends upon physical properties not on something like chance which is not tangible like chance.

The Scientific Method

Finally, there is the scientific method which typically establishes something previously theoretical into an established scientific fact so another flaw in the theory of evolution is that it is a historical scientific theory which clearly is non-repeatable.  Operational science deals with repeated observations of currently existing phenomena so it is hard to confirm evolution as factual or as a concrete, absolute truism or axiom because it can’t be repeated or observed as it is taking place, thereby making it impossible to falsify.  The word science means “knowledge” and science is the accumulation of knowledge.  Science is an intentional, systematic and logical approach to discovering how things work in the universe so evolution cannot ever be a proven theory that shows that it works. Why do I say that?  Because the scientific method must include these steps;

There must be observations made and recorded.

Information must be accumulated and questions must be asked about these observations.

A hypothesis must be formed from these observations and the information collected and predictions must be based upon this.

Then the hypothesis and predictions can be, hopefully, reproduced in an experiment.

Then the data can be analyzed and conclusions can be drawn that either result in the acceptance or rejection of the hypothesis.

Finally, the experiment should be reproduced until there are absolutely no discrepancies between the observations and the theory.

The bottom line is that the hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable, otherwise it cannot be accepted so my question to you is this; how can evolution be observed, then reproduced by experimentation, then analyzed, then reproduced again until there are no discrepancies found between the observations and the theory, and then be falsified?  The answer is that it cannot nor can it ever be.

Conclusion

There are many more than these 5 fatal flaws in evolution.  The theory of evolution is actually a faith-based belief since it must be accepted by faith.  There is truly only One Source for the entire universe and all life forms and that is the Creator God.  He doesn’t care if you believe this or not.  He only cares that you repent and believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.  Your flaw will be after you die, you are judged according to your works (Rev 20:11-15) and since no one can ever be saved by works (Eph 2:8-9) you will be eternally lost, however if you have believed in Christ, then God will see you just as He does Jesus Christ (2 Cor 5:21).  That is my hope for you.

Another Reading on Patheos to Check Out: What Did Jesus Really Look Like: A Look at the Bible Facts

Article by Jack Wellman

Jack Wellman is Pastor of the Mulvane Brethren church in Mulvane Kansas. Jack is also the Senior Writer at What Christians Want To Know whose mission is to equip, encourage, and energize Christians and to address questions about the believer’s daily walk with God and the Bible. You can follow Jack on Google Plus or check out his book  Blind Chance or Intelligent Design available on Amazon

1. Craig, William L. “The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe.”  Truth:  A Journal of Modern Thought 3 (1991): 85-96.

2. G.W. Leibniz, “The Principles of Nature and of Grace, Based on Reason,” in Leibniz Selections, ed. Philip P. Wiener, The Modern Student’s Library (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951), p. 527.

"Hmmm you've actually no purpose on this forum, but your own agenda. Sigh.....save your time. ..."

What Does The Bible Say About ..."
"Jack, thanks for this topic. It is an invaluable subject in the process of sanctification. ..."

What Does The Bible Say About ..."
"It gets you nowhere, nor any sympathy to attack people. You have questions, ask the ..."

What Does The Bible Say About ..."
"Oh boy. I don't know where to begin here. It was GOD who reached out ..."

6 Things That Damage Our Relationship ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Evangelical
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Isaac Edward Leibowitz

    Every creationist claim parroted here is debunked in detail in the Index to Creationist Claims, e.g.:

    CC200: Transitional fossils
    CA201. Evolution is only a theory
    CE400: Cosmology
    CA300-CA499: Scientific Method

    Index to Creationist Claims
    talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

    • peterp77

      Nope, the author is right. Not a single transitional fossil has ever been found. Suck it up, atheist bitches.

      • lance Geologist

        There are none if you choose to not see or read.The fact is that Creationists refuse to “see” the transitional forms and when another one is found the then say “what about the ones in between?” It does not matter how much scientific data exists they will refuse to “see.” Thus the “God of the gaps” approach favored by creationists.TOO bad they miss so much of this beautiful Earth

        • steghorn21

          The weight of proof is upon YOU,not us. Transitional fossils, please!

          • lance Geologist

            No, YOU refute it, you prove it. As for transitional fossils, try this thing called Google and type it and read the results.

      • Isaac Edward Leibowitz

        First, I’m not an atheist. Second, there are many transition fossils. You’re completely uninformed. Following is a website with plenty of scholarly journals by which to become better informed:

        Creationist Claim CC200:There are no transitional fossils. talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

        • Guest

          Aw not Talkorigins again.. Where have you been for the last decade? That site is garbage.

          • Isaac Edward Leibowitz

            Anything that doesn’t agree with your childish make-believe is “garbage”—to you. So?

          • Guest

            Oh, you’re going to pout over it? That’s typical.

          • lance Geologist

            Guest,simply explain why it is garbage? Site sources to refute it if you can. If we are to take your opinion, tell us where you studied and explain your position.

          • Guest

            Talkorigins is all misrepresentation and lies. Most people don’t even try to use that site anymore, but there’s always some n00b..

            http://creation.com/15-questions

          • Hrafn

            No. TalkOrigins Archive remains highly regarded by the scientific community. Creationists (including our friend Guest) of course absolutely hate it. After all, it repeatedly pokes holes in creationist “misrepresentation and lies”, and in fact explicitly cites the scientific evidence debunking them.

          • Guest

            You can live in a fantasy world if you want to but I’m going to stick with reality. Ciao.

          • Hrafn

            According to our friend Guest, the vast majority of the scientific community inhabit a “fantasy world”, whereas that inhabited by scientifically-illiterate religious chauvinists like Wellman is “reality”. Does anybody else see the problem with this picture?

          • Owen Atkins

            You’re very quick to dismiss others- but very very slow to provide facts.
            hint: assertions are not facts

          • Guest

            I’m not running a charity for junior high school dropouts.
            I don’t have to provide you with anything. If you like your theory of evolution you can keep your theory of evolution,
            but the burden of proof is on you, and so far you’ve got none.
            No one expects that to change anytime soon, so I’m sure you’ll understand if I don’t wait around for you to concoct yet another ‘adjustment’ to your bogus theory of monkey-people and outer space rock bacteria, or whatever science fiction is fashionable this week.

          • Dorfl

            For the sake of curious lurkers, I’ll walk through the Gish gallop you’ve linked to.

            How did life originate? […] how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?

            Biologists don’t think life started out with hundreds of proteins. More likely it started as some kind of self-replicating molecule resembling DNA or RNA.

            How did the DNA code originate? […] What other coding system has existed without intelligent design?

            This is basically an argument through over-extended analogy. We refer to DNA as a ‘code’, because it’s a useful word to get across the idea of what DNA does. Regrettably, this means making an analogy to something that is made by intelligent beings with some specific intent in mind, which can then be misinterpreted in the way the authors have done.

            It’s a bit like a biologist had said that a polar bear’s fur functions like a coat, and somebody demanding to know what coat has ever existed that wasn’t sewn by a tailor.

            How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes
            (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist?

            Again, the argument consists of taking analogies too far. While a biologist might explain a mutation as an ‘error’ or a ‘mistake’, all it really means is that we get a gene that looks different from what it used to. This may or may not make it better adapted to some particular function.

            Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place).

            The genes come from mutations, often involving duplications. That’s why biologists keep emphasising “mutation and natural selection”.

            How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?

            Often by simpler pathways being co-opted for different functions. The argument assumes that a biochemical pathway must have served the same function throughout the process by which it evolved. There is no basis for this assumption.

            Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? […] Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?

            We have a theory which explains why things look the way they look without needing to invoke design. Bringing in design means adding unnecessary to the theory, violating Occam’s razor.

            How did multi-cellular life originate?

            That we don’t know with certainty. The problem is not that we lack a hypothesis, but that we have several that would explain it and no way to test which of the different possible scenarios is actually true.

            How did sex originate? Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected?

            Sexual reproduction allows you to evolve faster, essentially. This allows a species to adapt to a hostile environment faster in general, and deal with parasites better in particular.

            Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?

            The number ‘countless millions’ is something they just made up. If you want to read about the many transitional fossils we have in fact found, wikipedia is your friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

            Since they quotemine Gould, I’ll also throw in this:

            Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups.

            How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years

            If there is no evolutionary pressure to change much, a species won’t. That said, the ‘living fossil’ claim is usually overstated by science reporters. Most species described as living fossils have in fact undergone small but noticeable changes.

            How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?

            Since we don’t actually understand how to human mind works, no theory can currently explain in detail how it came to be that way. If you’re curious about moral instincts in particular, a large part of the answer is that cooperative behaviour is often adaptive, but only if combined with attempts to catch defectors. See for example The Selfish Gene for more reading.

            Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated?

            Some subfields of evolutionary biology, notably evolutionary psychology, do tolerate a certain amount of just-so stories. This is a problem, and something many evolutionary biologists protest against.

            Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?

            Understanding where life came from is a scientific breakthrough. Also, the development of resistance against antibiotics and pesticides is an evolutionary process.

            Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?

            The division of science into operational and historical science is completely fictitious. Experiments are useful, but they’re not crucial. Observations of data generated by nature rather than experimenters can still be used to find support or falsification of hypotheses.

            Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? […] If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?

            This isn’t really a question, any more than “have you stopped beating your spouse yet?” is a question.

          • Guest

            You’re pretty feeble if you think that was a ‘Gish gallop’.
            15 questions gets 15 lies from you, you’re a total idiot.
            Dismissed.

          • lance Geologist

            Petty of you to call names when you are shown your errors.

          • Guest

            Silly of you to claim victory when you have been defeated. You must be a Democrat.
            You’re dismissed.

          • steghorn21

            “Most likely it started as some kind of self-replicating…” What proof is there of this? It seems pure speculation. Nothing comes from nothing.

          • Dorfl

            What proof is there of this?

            Science doesn’t actually deal in proofs. No statement about the natural world, including “the Earth is round” and “rocks sink in water” has ever been strictly proved, nor is it even in principle possible for them to be. I think what you’re looking for is ‘evidence’, not ‘proofs’.

            It seems pure speculation.

            As always, Wikipedia is a good place to start reading:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

            Nothing comes from nothing.

            I think you’re repeating the words of other Christian apologists without actually understanding them. “Nothing comes from nothing” is – correctly or not – a claim made in discussions about the origin of the universe. It is simply not relevant to discussions about abiogenesis, where the subject is how replicating molecules could come from non-replicating molecules.

          • Konserwatysta

            “Nothing from Nothing” by Billy Preston.

          • Greg_Peterson

            It’s a good site. A little dated. But the current responses would be so much MORE forceful, you should be grateful that people still use the outmoded one. At least you have pathetic bumper sticker replies to that stuff. The overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution in the past five to ten years simply makes your position untenable by any reasonable measure.

          • ch bu

            Creation.com is a web of lies and misinformation.

          • Isaac Edward Leibowitz

            If you want to query “guest” about his term “garbage,” then reply to one of his comments.

          • lance Geologist

            sorry

          • Ted Evelyn Mosby

            How does having an opinion of a website make him childish?

      • theot58

        The fossil record is major PROBLEM for evolution as indicated by Stephen Jay Gould when he said:

        “The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy.
        Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion,
        The coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs…”

        Source: Gould, Stephen Jay, The Panda’s Thumb, pp 238-239, 1980

        • lance Geologist

          Theo: quote mining again, meaning nothing. I suggest one read the whole book! Actually very interesting evolutionary hypothesis in the book.

        • Christopher R Weiss

          Good thing that the theory of evolution does not depend on fossils… phew! However, if you read Shubin’s work, evolution has predicted where different types of fossils should be present, and voila! the predictions have turned out to be true.

          The source you cite is 34 years old. A great many new fossils have been discovered since then.

          Citing the Cambrian period as an explosion is misleading. The cambrian period covered around 65 MILLION YEARS! I would hardly call that an explosion in terms of time. Humans have only been around for less than 1 million years.

          • steghorn21

            Millions of fossils, but no transitionals! And no transitionals means a null hypothesis for evolution.

          • Christopher R Weiss

            Aren’t you responding a little late?

            Sorry… your statement is one of the most ridiculous I have seen in quite a while. To call it idiotic is to insult idiots.

            Tell ya’ what. Take a walk through the museum of natural history and read the words on a few displays.

            I can help with ignorance, but I can’t cure stupid.

          • Dorfl

            If there’s no museum of natural history nearby, as Christopher suggested, Wikipedia is a good place to read up on the basics of the topic:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

            In short, large numbers of transitional fossils have been found. However, many creationists have discovered that simply asserting “there are no transitional fossils” sufficiently loudly is in many cases enough. Lots of people don’t have the patience to doublecheck a claim they hear repeated often enough and confidently enough.

        • Dorfl

          Gould is a very quotable guy. From the same book:

          Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups.

          • steghorn21

            He chooses his evidence to fit the theory. The fossil record doesn’t fit standard evolutional theory so, bingo, we have puntuated equilibria. Very unscientifc.

          • Dorfl

            Your first two sentences contradict each other. First you allege that

            He chooses his evidence to fit the theory.

            Then you describe what he does as

            The fossil record doesn’t fit standard evolutional theory so, bingo, we have puntuated equilibria.

            In other words, changing the theory to fit the evidence, exactly like a scientist is supposed to do.

        • Owen Atkins

          “The coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs..”
          Theo, are you talking about the Cambrian period?
          Please locate a rabbit, an elephant and a human in the Cambrian.
          Darn, you can’t can you?
          Take a long look at the creatures extant during the Cambrian and find critters present today. Oops, again, you can’t.
          Now take a huge dose of honesty and note that this means a serious level of evolution has happened since that time.

      • Owen Atkins

        What makes you think evolution is supported only by atheists. It isn’t. The majority of folks behind evolution are also behind the idea of God. Most of them are Christians.

        • Ted Evelyn Mosby

          How can you say that the majority of people behind evolution are also behind the idea of God? That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Almost everyone who believes in evolution is not a believer in God. Clearly those Christians who believe in evolution don’t even know their own religion and therefore cannot be a Christian if they believe in something that contradicts what Christianity says which is that Adam was created from dust and Eve was created from one of Adam’s ribs, therefore your point is moot.

      • HIGH AS FUCK BRUH

        Your piece of shit pope accepted evolution as factual and the truth. Now follow your superior you worthless piece of shit

        • James R. Olson

          How very edifying, Bruh.

      • James R. Olson

        Ha effin’ ha effin’ha. That is all.

      • Edward

        Homo Erectus, Homo Heidelbergensis, Homo Floresiensis, etc. If I were to present you with something like this: 1,2,3,_,5,6,7_,9,10,_,12 would you dismiss it, even though they obviously lead up to one another or would you be able to use your skills of deduction from the evidence given to fill in the blanks even though the blanks aren’t given? Full fossil records are hard to find and even though the fossils present may not be acceptable to a non scientist such as yourself there are other full fossil sets that show “missing links”.

        • Ted Evelyn Mosby

          Ah but we haven’t been presented with something like 1,2,3,_,5,6,7_,9,10,_,12. What we have actually been presented with is something like this: 1,_,_,_,_….,_,50. Also Charles Darwin just saw two creatures that looked similar and he ASSUMED that one must have come from the other and that the two must be related somehow. Also why this is taught in schools as fact is beyond me seeing as there is no physical proof that we evolved from monkeys/apes.

          • Owen Atkins

            Ah no. The human family tree is very much like 1,2,3, ,5,6, ,8
            We have a very large number of fossils of ancestors and transitionals on our line or on side branches.

            Darwin may have assumed, as you put it, but his assumptions (and Wallace’s assumptions) have been borne out in the fossil record and in genetics.

    • steghorn21

      And yet, there are STILL no transitional fossils.

      • ch bu

        That you don’t ignore.

  • Jon Moles

    Why would you make yourself look this foolish when the information is widely available to prove you wrong? Just admit that you don’t like evolution because of your ideology and move on.

    • theot58

      Since evolution is taught as a scientific fact in the classroom, the onus of proof is on evolutionists. But the scientific evidence is NOT there; just wild ambit claims with scanty interpretations – not objecitive evidence.

      Ask yourself what evidence is there to support the wild assertion that from a simple and chaotic beginning, the prevailing world emerged by the application of onlyt natural forces (wind , rain, etc)?

      Malcom Muggeridge, Pascal Lectures, Ontario Canada, University of Waterloo said:

      “I, myself, am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the credulity that it has.”

      • ButILikeCaves

        Excellent citation…
        Malcom[sic] Muggeridge: he who criticized Monty Python over his perceived blasphemy in the film Life of Brian… having arrived late for the showing, thus missing the two scenes in which Jesus and Brian are in fact two separate people.
        What did this esteemed journalist arrive late to that made him pen the above?

      • lance Geologist

        Theo,Thomas Malcolm Muggeridge was an English journalist, author, media personality, and satirist.It seems quite lame to use him as an expert on evolution or even quote him, or maybe he was being satirical! I do give you credit for pasting new stuff instead of you normal stuff.

      • Dorfl

        I complained earlier about conservative Christians having a bad habit of using ‘evolution’ as a catch-all term for “all parts of modern science that make me uncomfortable”. This is an excellent example of that:

        Ask yourself what evidence is there to support the wild assertion that from a simple and chaotic beginning, the prevailing world emerged by the application of only natural forces (wind, rain, etc)?

        The question of whether the prevailing world started with a simple and chaotic beginning and emerged by the application of only natural forces, is completely irrelevant to the actual theory of evolution. As far as I can tell, what you’re trying to object to is cosmology, which is a completely different field.

        • Christopher R Weiss

          If you were to google Theo, you will find hundreds of recycled comments where he combines abiogenesis, cosmology, and evolutionary biology into one big lump, criticizing this lump as if it were one uniform and dependent theory.

          Theo is a young earth creationist from Australia with no background in science.

        • theot58

          Dorfl, your understanding of Darwinian/Macro evolution must be very limited because that is exactly what it says.
          Darwinian/Macro evolution asserts that:
          1) From a single cell or self replication molecule (evolutionists cannot agree on the exact starting point)
          2) Natural selection + natural forces + lots of time
          3) Produces the prevailing world.
          What part of this do you not understand?

          • Christopher R Weiss

            Here are the standard responses to you Theo, that I have posted many times:

            The theory of evolution does not depend on how life started.

            The changes that result in speciation can be observed in real time with living species.

            In an old earth model, which you do not believe, the biosphere has changed over dramatically with 5 significant extinction and repopulation events. There were times when no reptiles existed, no mammals, no flowering plants, etc. These species appeared over time. The explanation that is best supported by the evidence is evolution.

            It is you who does not understand or acknowledge reality.

          • Dorfl

            The part where this is not actually what you said. You talked about “simple and chaotic beginnings”, which isn’t really a term that it makes any sense to use about the origin of life. Simple, maybe, but I don’t see how a self-replicating molecule can be ‘chaotic’.

      • Owen Atkins

        Gee Theo, still repeating that same tired drivel? Muggeridge was a journalist. His comments on science have what weight exactly? He’s also been gone for a long while.
        You conveniently left out the fact that the majority of folks who accept evolution also believe in God. Which rather means that they also believe that God is somehow behind evolution.
        Just like gravity (you’ll be shocked to learn that the majority of folks who accept the idea of gravity also believe in God) evolution doesn’t have to be considered as “only a natural force”.

        • theot58

          I tend to agree with Dawkins on this.
          Theistic evolution does violence to both God and science.
          it is the politically correct solution which keeps every body happy. Only problem is the evidence does not support it.

      • Owen Atkins

        You still posting the same tired old and lame drivel Theo?
        Get some new material, the old stuff has been so well debunked on so many forums I get embarrassed for you sometimes.

  • Dorfl

    I was going to defrost my fridge, but you’re being wrong on the internet, so change of plans. A tl;dr of everything below is that you have no idea what the theory of evolution actually says.

    The Lack of Transitional Fossils

    This quote summarises the basic misunderstanding your reasoning is based on:

    A missing link means nothing when there is no line of evidence in the form of transitional fossils that can show us a gradual change of one species into another, new species.

    It is emphatically not the case that evolution goes from one discrete species to another new discrete species, in between passing through some sort intermediate stage that’s not quite a true species. At any particular moment, you would describe the population of whatever life form it is as forming one species. So your statement that “Instead, they find fossils mislabeled as ‘missing links’ that are in reality either a newly discovered species or a now-extinct species” is not even wrong.

    If you want to read up on transitional fossils and common misunderstandings of the concept, wikipedia is always a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

    The Origin of a Species

    The theory of abiogenesis that Pasteur disproved is one that said maggots could be generated by rotting meat and fleas from dust. Nobody today believes anything like that. What we do believe is that molecules capable of replicating themselves with some degree of fidelity could arise spontaneously.

    The Complexity of Life

    To believe that the information contained in DNA/RNA simply happened by random luck or blind chance is to believe that you can throw a stick of dynamite into a printing factory and come out with the U.S. Constitution.

    First of all, nobody believes that random luck or blind chance formed our DNA. Mutation on its own can’t really do anything much. Mutation, combined with the non-random process of natural selection, is what formed our DNA.

    Although Neo-Darwinism necessitates that mutations must generate new information, not once have any mutations ever been observed where they created new and more complex organism that theorists of evolution see as necessary.

    This is false, and wikipedia is your friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

    The Cosmological Argument

    This is completely irrelevant. Cosmology has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, but for some reason conservative Christians have a tendency to use ‘evolution’ as a blanket term for “all parts of modern science that make me uncomfortable”.

    The Scientific Method

    Your description of the scientific method is wrong. Lab experiments are nice, but you can do without them. All you need is some prediction saying “if hypothesis A is true then we should be able to observe the following, while there would be no reason for that to be the case if A were false”. If the observation predicted is “this experiment will have that result” or “digging in this type of rock should reveal that kind of fossil” makes no difference.

    • Guest

      What a bunch of malarkey. You’re just some punk kid, aren’t you.

      • cooper biancur

        I would trust this “kid”, who gives actual links and arguements that exist in this century, over a Pastor use job is to lie to people.

    • Ted Evelyn Mosby

      Answer me this, if evolution is carried out through a process of natural selection which means that the fittest survives then how did apes and monkeys survive longer that neanderthals if neanderthals are more evolved than apes and monkeys?

      • Dorfl

        The problem with the premises for the question is right here:

        […] if neanderthals are more evolved than apes and monkeys?

        An organism may be better or worse adapted to its environment, but there isn’t actually any such thing as being “more” or “less” evolved. Poorly written popular science texts often make it sound as though its possible to rank organisms from inferior, less evolved, forms to superior, more evolved forms, but this is simply not the case. No actual biologist makes such rankings, and they play no role in evolutionary biology.

        For similar reasons, the phrase “survival of the fittest” should also be used with caution. Biologists tend to avoid it altogether, since it is so easily misunderstood. If you absolutely want to use it, you must remember that “fitness” has to be taken to refer to how well an organism* fits into its local environment. There is no such thing as being “fit” in an absolute sense.

        * Or gene, really. That’s what selection actually operates on.

    • Konserwatysta

      “The Complexity of Life

      To believe that the information contained in DNA/RNA simply happened by random luck or blind chance is to believe that you can throw a stick of dynamite into a printing factory and come out with the U.S. Constitution.
      First of all, nobody believes that random luck or blind chance formed our DNA. Mutation on its own can’t really do anything much. Mutation, combined with the non-random process of natural selection, is what formed our DNA.”

      Fail.
      No amount of time, nor multiverse invocation (M-theory), can ever randomly create complex information from chaos. If it ever did happen, just think of the odds against the sustainability and replication of said information. 10∞
      This is what your ‘theory’ claims.

      I won’t bother with the rest.

  • Greg_Peterson

    Setting aside the many absurd (and easily corrected, if you bothered) errors of fact in this piece, Mr. Wellman, we have this:
    “There are billions of fossils on or under the earth and hundreds of millions of living and now extinct species….”
    That means that your engineer was completely indifferent to suffering and loss, and incredibly horrible at functional, robust and flexible design. If I thought there was any reason to believe in such an engineer, I would point and laugh, not be filled with love, awe, and worshipful obedience. Fortunately for me–and you, if you’d recognize it–we are not the product of a bored toymaker with self-esteem issues, but starstuff shuffled and dealt out according to differential patterns of success. There is grandeur in this view of life. In your meatpuppet view? Not so much.

  • lance Geologist

    I am sure others will point out your incredibly misstated beliefs, assumptions and just plain wrong thoughts about what Evolutionary theory is. However I will try to correct your misstatements about hypothesis.
    Proposed: mammals existed in the Devonian. Observation: Look at Devonian rocks. No mammals ever have been found in Devonian rocks.
    Proposed: Crionoids Existed in the Devonian and changed through time.Observation: Look at Devonian, Carboniferous,Permian and newer rocks until the present.Crioinoids did exist in the Devonian and are still in our oceans, however they are much changed since the Devonian.
    Conclusions (BASED ON OBSERVATION):Hypothesis not proven. No Mammals in the Devonian, probable FALSE.
    Conclusion (BASED ON OBSERVATION): Hypothesis confirmed. Crionoids did exist in the Devonian and still exist,however they are very much changed.
    YOU don’t have to have lived 300 million years ago to observe 300 million old rocks.DON’T buy into the creationist lies about science and the term “observation”.
    Observation only requires that one open ones eyes and “see.” The truly blind are those who will not see, not those who can not see.

  • Hrafn

    Let me point out a few further fallacies that earlier posts may have missed, or failed to sufficiently emphasise.

    The Simplistic Strawman (was “The Complexity of Life”)

    The Theory of Evolution does not claim that Evolution is a purely random process. In fact one of its most famous mechanisms, discovered by Darwin himself, Natural Selection is explicitly non-random. Therefore claiming that the ToE states that “DNA/RNA simply happened by random luck or blind chance” is an obvious (and blatantly dishonest) strawman.

    I would further point out that the assertion that “information infers intelligence” has no scientitifc basis whatsoever. This claim is most closely associated with ID Creationist William Dembski, and has never been accepted by the scientific community. His work has been described as “written in jello” by a prominent mathematician (whose own work Dembski was citing), for its lack of rigor.

    The Cosmological Irrelevance

    As well as being irrelevant (as an earlier poster pointed out, as the ToE is about biology, not the origins of the universe or the existence of God), this argument, and particularly William Lane Craig’s version of it, have been heavily disputed. A number of prominent physicists have accused him of misrepresenting the related science in making his claims. In particular, his first proposition appears to be heavily undercut by recent advances in quantum mechanics, and his second proposition is a misrepresentation of the Big Bang Theory.

    The Pseudoscientific Method

    The supposed superiority of “operational” over “historical” sciences has no basis in either science or the philosophy of science, but is rather the fabrication of pseudoscientific apologetics ministries (most notably Answers in Genesis).

    The scientific method does not require repeatability. That a hypothesis entails novel predictions that can tested against new evidence that is later discovered is just as acceptable.

    Conclusion

    I would point out that Wellman appears to know less about evolution, and his supposed “flaws”, than anybody could find out simply by reading the Wikipedia articles on the related topics. Why anybody would take him seriously on the topic is beyond me.

    • Dorfl

      The Cosmological Irrelevance

      Since I’m actually not a biologist but a physicist, it took a bit of effort to tell myself “Red herring: do not pursue!” about this part of Wellman’s argument, but I can fill in some of the problems with it here:

      The Big Bang may not be the beginning

      Popular science texts will say things on the lines of “Time began at the Big Bang”. It’s not at all clear that this is true. To describe what happened at the Big Bang we need to combine General Relativity with Quantum Physics, and nobody known how to do that. The theorems implying that time did begin assume that GR can be used unmodified at arbitrarily high energies, which it almost certainly cannot. At the moment, each of the following is completely possible:

      1. Time ends at the Big Bang.

      2. Time continues prior to the Big Bang.

      3. Time is an emergent property that does not apply at Big Bang-conditions.

      A universe with a finite past did not necessarily have a first moment

      This doesn’t get talked about a lot, but the assumption that if the universe goes back a finite distance into the past then there must have been a first moment in time assumes that points in time form a closed set. There is no particular reason why it would be that, rather than an open set. In that case, every moment would have moments prior to it, removing the ‘moment of creation’ that people tend to talk about.

      This is very counter-intuitive though, which may explain why cosmologists avoid bringing it up in debates in favour of arguing more accessible points. After all, pretty much WLC’s entire schtick is getting people to use common sense and intuition in situations that are uncommon and nonintuitive.

      Cause and effect is not necessarily a meaningful concept at the most fundamental description of reality

      When we’re working at a macroscopic level and entropy is not maximal, it’s very useful to say “the egg smashed against the floor because it fell off the table”. It sounds very strange to say “the egg fell off the table because it smashed against the floor”. There seems to be a non-arbitrary way to divide events into ’causes’ and ‘effects’.

      At a microscopic level or without making demands on the entropy, this is no longer the case. Whether something counts as a ’cause’ or an ‘effect ‘becomes just a matter of convention. This means that it’s not clear that talking about ‘the cause of the universe’ is at all meaningful. More likely it means that we’re unwittingly taking intuitions shaped by one particular region in the universe and using them outside their domain of applicability.

    • Tommi lee

      “The scientific method does not require repeatability.”

      This poster almost gave me cancer with this sentence.

      • Hrafn

        Tell me, how do you “repeat” an earthquake, a tornado, a supernova, or any other natural phenomena that science investigates every day, that don’t fit into a laboratory?

        • Tommi lee

          Easy, you wait for the Earthquake, Hurricane, Supernova.

          Find patterns, find evidence, wait for replication, refute and confirm what’s (not) a pattern and you have a theory.

          You don’t just see a psychopath drinking Vodka and say “all psychos drink vodka, period”.

          C’mon bro : /

          • Hrafn

            NOT “easy”, or even possible. Each earthquake, tornado or supernova involves numerous unique circumstances, so are NOT A REPEAT of earlier events.

            So, in common with sciences that creationists falsely dismiss as “historical”, you see “patterns” and “evidence”, but YOU DO NOT SEE “replication”. Which was my point.

            You do “just see” somebody making a ridiculous caricature of science. Were you inebriated on vodka, or having a psychotic break when you made it up? Nobody is suggesting that science does, or should, work that way. The point is that numerous phenomena are not possible to replicate in a laboratory under controlled circumstances, so are not reasonably describable as exact “repeats” of earlier (similarly lab-controlled) events. This therefore results in a higher degree of uncertainty, due to this lack of control, but does not mean that the scientific model cannot be followed in making predictions about such events.

            No laboratory control equals no replication but does not equal no scientific method.

            And could you lay off the faux-folksiness? I never find it endearing, and it seems even more out of place in a discussion about the scientific method.

      • Ted Evelyn Mosby

        lol

  • Guest

    There has never been any such thing as biological evolution. It just doesn’t happen.

    • theot58

      Darwinian/Macro evolution is a fairy tale for grownups.

      It is thrust upon trusting students in the science classroom as a scientific “fact” when the observable scientific evidence condemns it big time.

      Dr Ben Carson; Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at one of the world’s greatest hospitals (John Hopkins), a groundbreaking surgeon, best-selling author, and recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom said:

      “I think one of the most damning pieces of evidence against evolution is the human genome.

      You can see that you have very complex, sophisticated coding mechanisms for different amino acids, and various sequences that give you millions of different genetic instructions — very much like computer programming, which uses a series of zeros and ones in different sequences, but gives you very specific information about what that computer is to do.”

      • Hrafn

        Ben Carson may have been an incredibly gifted surgeon, but he is also a first-class loon (having said all sorts of crazy things), and there is no overlap between surgery and evolutionary biology, so his ignorant denial of evolution is no more relevant than a famous orchestral conductor’s or a famous painter’s would be.

      • Christopher R Weiss

        Given the malleability and changes introduced into DNA just through sexual reproduction, this sort of shoots down your computer programming model. Computer programs will typically fail if you disturb the instructions in the slightest. However, we have near infinite variety in the looks, capabilities, etc., within people. DNA can be used to uniquely identify individuals.

        DNA is a template – it is not instructions and it is not a program. DNA also shows a range of complexity from very simple to very complex, which is *EXACTLY* what evolutionary biology predicts if organisms evolved instead of were designed or created.

        Your constant appeal to discredited authorities is foolish and destroys any legitimate points you would like to make.

  • theot58

    Excellent article, completely agree. There are many more scientific flaws in Darwinian/macro evolution, but this is a good start.

    • ButILikeCaves

      Pass the Windex: I just spewed my coffee on my monitor laughing so hard.

      • Christopher R Weiss

        Young earth creationists are like that. When they spout off people’s reactions go in phases – laughter, confusion, anger, disgust, and then indifference.. It is almost like the stages of grief.

  • petergkinnon

    As pointed out by others here, it is not the well evidenced model oi biological evolution by natural selection which is full of holes but, rather, the misguided but, no doubt, sincere assertions of Jack Wellman.

    To take up one particular issue which has not been previously well-addressed, the related matter of abiogenesis, though. A plausible scenario which is entirely consistent with known physical and chemical processes has at long last emerged.

    This, together with related issues is discussed in detail within the context of a much broader evolutionary model in “The Intricacy Generator: Pushing Chemistry and Geometry Uphill”. Also, very informally, in “The Goldilocks Effect: What Has Serendipity Ever Done For Us?”. The latter being a free download in e-book formats from my “Unusual Perspectives” website.

  • ButILikeCaves

    Jack “Cut and Paste” Wellman. Try some original thought for once, instead inserting tired old screeds from The Google.

  • Jimpithecus

    “There are billions of fossils on or under the earth and hundreds of
    millions of living and now extinct species, yet there is not one single
    set of transitional fossils that clearly show one specie evolving into
    another or different species, therefore a lack of transitional fossils
    is, to me, a fatal flaw in the theory of evolution.

    This is complete nonsense. The writer, like most creationists, knows nothing about the fossil record. There are countless transitional forms at every single taxonomic level. There are some fossil forms in the human fossil record, alone, that are so transitional that there are debates about what to call them and where they fit. Yet another very badly misinformed creationist.

  • Jimpithecus

    “Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth,
    the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the
    motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative
    positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the
    cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals,
    shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as
    being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a
    disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a
    Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture,
    talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to
    prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up
    vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is
    not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that
    people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers
    held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose
    salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and
    rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a
    field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his
    foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe
    those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead,
    the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they
    think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they
    themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?
    ” –St. Augustine

  • HIGH AS FUCK BRUH

    JESUS DUN DID IT GUYS!
    JESUS IS OUR LAWD N SAYVIOURE!

  • James R. Olson

    Yes, of course I will go to a pastor for advice on evolution. Jaysus, you cain’t fix stupid!

  • Nura Rikuo

    If you are going to argue science with science, then actually use science, don’t just pretend you are using science.

    I.E. “There have been multiple experiments over many years where scientists and/or biologists have tried to create a life form, even at the microscopic level, and time after time have failed miserably.”

    But

    http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-05/21/worlds-first-living-synthetic-cell-created

    BTW, disproving evolution doesn’t prove creationism. All of these pages on the internet about why creationists are right and not evolutionists makes it very difficult to actually find valid arguments about why evolution is right or wrong, and they are a nuisance, not helpful.

  • Krist Martin

    I’m going to debunk this in 3…2….1…

    Transitional Fossils: the Article fails to grasp two major points, 1) that all fossils are technically transitional ones. And 2) that a fossil is a snap shot of a species at a given point in time. There aren’t “whole chains” missing, and more importantly, the concept of a “link” in a “chain” is misleading and is an outdated and, generally speaking, rejected concept.
    And let’s be frank here; the article’s author doesn’t understand that there are millions of species and many of these species are transitional ones from One species to another. Take archaeopteryx, we have plenty of fossils for this animal, and it is a transitional animal between non-avian raptors and avian (meaning flying) feathered raptors or what we call the modern bird.

    There are dozens of examples like this one which the author of the article willfully ignores.

    Origin of Species: Actually biologists have been studying and experimenting to determine the origins of life as we know it to be on Earth for several decades. That being said, Evolution as a theory doesn’t actually contend with the origins of life, but rather how life progressed after it form. To some this argument is a cop-out so I’ll go a bit further. Evolution revolves around how environmental factors effect already existing lifeforms and how those lifeforms adapt and then pass along those adaptations to their offspring. For evolution to occur life must first exist. So the question of where does life originate doesn’t really stem from Evolution Theory, but it is related.

    Commonly call abiogenesis where biological life formed through natural forces, is explainable by evolution. Not only is it explainable by evolution theory, but it is reliant upon Evolution Theory along with physics and chemistry for it to happen.

    The base components of life, amino acids, do not form naturally under the conditions the Earth was in some 5.5 billion years ago. In fact Earth would have been a hostile water-less planet with little atmosphere at this point. But over the the period of the first billion years of its existence, Earth coalesced an atmosphere by clearing its orbital path, and was bombarded by millions of comets, asteroids, and meteors carrying raw materials to form water and a nitrogen and hydrogen rich atmosphere. Comet bombardment in particular is a primary source for the formation of base amino acids in the atmosphere. The energy produced from impacting and hitting the atmosphere caused fusion of baser atoms and the fission of more complex atoms into base atomic components (and yes, atomic reactions do occur upon meteor, asteroid, and comet impacts and traversal of the atmosphere~this is mostly initiated by the ionosphere and the interaction of charged particles being bombarded by the entering object). These broken down base particles reformed into more complex materials and formed strong chemical bonded chains forming which we call amino acids and amino acid chains. This process is called shock synthesis.

    In a recent experiment (2014) performed by Dr Haruna Sugahara, from the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC) in Yokahama, and Dr Koichi Mimura, from Nagoya University (their findings were initially published via the EAG and reported in the August edition of Physics Magazine (link for full article below)) showed that the impact of comets yielded peptide chains given the conditions found around four billion years ago on Earth. They believe, along with NASA, that comet impact played a key role in the formation of glycine, which is considered an essential amino acid for many forms of plant life and bacteria (although it is non-essential to human life).

    Read more at: http://phys.org/…/2015-08-comet-impacts-life-earthand…

    The Complexity of Life: Let me share a quote from the article and explain why it is the dumbest bullshit ever.
    “To believe that the information contained in DNA/RNA simply happened by random luck or blind chance is to believe that you can throw a stick of dynamite into a printing factory and come out with the U.S. Constitution. Information infers intelligence.”

    The problem here is that the author is ignoring the Theory of Evolution and creating a straw-man argument. No biologists believes that DNA and RNA arose from random luck. Far from it. We know that certain natural processes, like comet impacts, lighting strikes, and other energetic reactions can and do cause amino acids to form naturally, even today. Evolution infers complexity. The more environmental factors that a lifeform encounters and must adapt to, to either survive or utilize that environment, the more complex it becomes. Intelligence isn’t needed for the complexity of life, only a great deal of time, and multitudes of various lifeforms living and moving through different environments adapting and evolving to meet the demands of those environments. Humans are a pinnacle of what is called cerebral evolution (though we may not be the only ones to be at this stage per se). Cerebral evolution is when our bodies stop adapting and thus evolving with great distinguishing features, and instead we adapt and learn through mental exercise. Our physical changes slowed and have arguably stalled because we no longer need to evolve a new body part or feature to handle a new environment. We adapt through mental processes and evolve through passing that knowledge on to the next generation.

  • Krist Martin

    Continued: 2nd of 4 posts:
    The Cosmological Argument: There are several problems with this argument, and they hinge on the understanding that ancient philosophers like Plato, had about the issue of causality.

    Many of the basic arguments of the Cosmological Argument can be restated as the Casual Relation Theory, which is similar to Newtonian laws of physics. For all things that happen there must be a cause, and that cause must lead to a secondary effect.

    The author states the Cosmological argument as (paraphrasing here) All things that exist must have begun at some point, the Universe exists therefore it must have a beginning, therefore the Universe had a cause.

    The biggest problem with this is that Newtonian physics isn’t yet reconciled with Relativity and with Quantum physics. New experiments show that the Universe, from the perspective of quantum particles, has always existed and is infinite. What we see as an expansion in the universe is the effect of transitioning from one quantum state to another, or the parody of entropy.

    Simply put, the universe prior to the Big Bang was a universe in an energetic quantum state. An analogy would be Dominoes stacked ready to tumble in succession. At some point a group of quantum particles began to coalesce due to gravity or a yet to be named force kicking off a cascade of energetic reaction. A domino toppling of quantum particles racing across the quantum space. This is the Big Bang, quantum particles cascading into jumbles and pockets of combined matter.

    The universe’s outward expansion is really the ongoing cascade of quantum particles, a continuation of the Big Bang. Time and Space as we exist in it today, are the dominoes in our analogy in mid-fall, moving every slowly towards an end where there is no more potential energy and non-energetic entropy settles in. When all massive particles break down again into their most simplest of states.

  • Krist Martin

    Continued (Looks like I could do it in three posts woot)
    The Scientific Method: The Author here really doesn’t understand what the scientific method is. This fact of non-understanding is exhibited here in this quote “Finally, there is the scientific method which typically establishes something previously theoretical into an established scientific fact so another flaw in the theory of evolution is that it is a historical scientific theory which clearly is non-repeatable.”

    The scientific method is not establishing previous theory into fact. The scientific method is a means of answering a question through observation and experimentation.

    The scientific method is as follows: Questioning: I have a question.
    Hypothesizing: What is a possible answer to this question?
    Testing: How do I determine if my answer to the question is correct?
    Theorizing: I’ve determines through experimentation that…
    Re-testing: My initial test results are confirmed/ My initial test results weren’t replicable.
    Re-theorizing: Upon confirming through testing I can soundly say, with the given information my hypothesis was correct and I have soundly answered the question/ Upon confirming through testing my initial hypothesis isn’t correct, a new answer has arisen.
    Theory Establishment; Here is my answer to my question.
    New Information provided; does it fit the theory, yes or no? If yes, good, experiment to verify. If no, then good, determine why, experiment and retest, change theory to fit new data.
    -The last step done ad-nauseum.
    Once a theory is thoroughly tested and all new information obtained is established, vetted, tested, and examined and the theory adjusted to meet said new data a law is established.

    A scientific law is a practical theory which seems to always work regardless of the information available. There are very few scientific laws. These laws are mostly basic, and apply to closed systems. Such laws include; the laws of thermodynamics, Newton’s laws of motion, etc.

    These laws are absolute when given specific parameters and a closed system. Everything else is still a theory.

    Gravity is a scientific theory, Evolution is a scientific theory, Electromagnetism is still just a theory. Yet, for all practical purposes they all work. If you jump up, you will fall back down to the Earth. If you are reading this now you are operating on a machine that is based on a theory of how electricity works.

    The scientific method is not just the establishment of former theories into facts. On the contrary, it is an ongoing process of study and refinement of how we understand things to operate within our reality.

    The Theory of Evolution is both a simple and complex concept and scientific theory. It is not “non-repeatable” and in fact we, as humans, have inadvertently caused evolution to happen in very marked historical fashion. Our interaction with wolves and domesticating them into dogs and then breeding dogs as we spread though different environments is an example of evolution, albeit a forced one (we humans being an environmental factor curtailing specific traits doesn’t detract from this fact).

    We have observed in nature the rapid change of animals through evolution into new species and even cross speciation with animals like the lung fish. The lung fish is a remarkable example of evolution in action. Since we’ve discovered the Lung Fish nearly a hundred years ago now, we’ve seen through direct observation in the wild (no direct contact or influencing) these fish change phylum, moving from fish to amphibian.

    And yes, the bottom line is that a theory must be testable and must be falsifiable, and evolution is most certainly that. Just because the author isn’t privy to the thousands of experiments being done testing the theory, the hundreds of studies being done in both controlled and natural environments to examine evolution and how it works, doesn’t invalidate the theory. It only shows that his position is inaccurate.

    Conclusion, the author; Jack Wellman, is a pandering moron who hasn’t a clue what he’s talking about.

  • archysmith

    Where does Jesus say he was lord/god in the bible (reference). If you say god created everything if god created everything why would you worship a creation of god how can god beget. everything that’s created must have been created by something outside of its creation if not then its not the creator. If Jesus died for everyone’s sins and if you don’t believe, you have sinned but because he died for the sins already i am forgiven so that’s a flaw in itself. There is only one creator who is eternal absolute nothing compares to him he does not beget neither is he begotten.

  • 90Lew90

    I find it hard to believe are that people like you still put out trash like this and that anyone, including you, takes it seriously.

  • ch bu

    This article should be more correctly titled ‘5 Fatal flaws in my understanding of evolution.’