Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

iman · 03-26-2004, 01:44 AM

Disprove Evolution?

I can't disprove it, but I can point to some problems (I haven't read much literature on this topic, so much of my criticism may be easily explained away):

As I understand it, the theory of Evolution states that random traits that spring up in species are supposed to be reinforced because they are either 1) beneficial for the survival of the individual mutant or 2) help the mutant to reproduce somehow.

Take the example of a bird's wing. I don't suppose that a fully formed, functional wing would have sprung out of a wingless animal. A little stub of a wing must have grown first. Now, how could a little stubby wing-thingie be at all beneficial to the survival of the animal? Or, how could it make the animal reproduce easier - be attractive? Evolutionists could explain these examples only by sticking to their guns and saying "Well, a stubby wing-thingie MUST have been beneficial to the animal, or the animal wouldn't have survived!!" But that's just saying that evolution is true because the theory of evolution is true. Likewise if wings formed from long appendages spreading out somehow. You could construct some sort of story about gliding animals with flabby-assed arms developing into winged animals, but unless you're really wedded to your account and really want it to work out, you'll probably see that flabby arms probably wouldn't be a good thing or help animals glide.

Sticking to birds - lots and lots of traits must have concurrently evolved in order to make a bird: hollow bones, feathers, wings (probably more). Now, all of these traits seem to work well together (hollow bones make the bird light so it can fly using wings and feathers), but none of the traits seem to be beneficial unless they're paired with the other ones. Quick, name a non-bird with feathers? You mean feathers didn't "stick" as a trait? Okay, maybe the hollow bones came first - name a non-flying animal with hollow bones? Okay, so that doesn't seem to be very beneficial by itself, except as something to help you fly. Wings? Same idea.

I'm not a creationist (not even a Christian/Jew/Muslim), and I don't believe in that shite, but there does seem to be a conspicuous order to the way parts of an organism work together. I know, evolution tries to explain this by saying that the reason the parts work so well is that those traits stuck over time. Step back for a minute and think about something as complex as the eye. Soooo many things have to work in perfect order for an eye to work - how the hell could something like that have evolved the way Darwin says things evolve?

I'm not saying "evolution" is wrong. Of course things evolve. I'm saying Darwin's way of explaining evolution has some problems as far as I'm concerned. I'm happy to be proved wrong, though.

03-26-2004, 01:44 AM	#53 (permalink)
iman Upright Location: NYC	Disprove Evolution? I can't disprove it, but I can point to some problems (I haven't read much literature on this topic, so much of my criticism may be easily explained away): As I understand it, the theory of Evolution states that random traits that spring up in species are supposed to be reinforced because they are either 1) beneficial for the survival of the individual mutant or 2) help the mutant to reproduce somehow. Take the example of a bird's wing. I don't suppose that a fully formed, functional wing would have sprung out of a wingless animal. A little stub of a wing must have grown first. Now, how could a little stubby wing-thingie be at all beneficial to the survival of the animal? Or, how could it make the animal reproduce easier - be attractive? Evolutionists could explain these examples only by sticking to their guns and saying "Well, a stubby wing-thingie MUST have been beneficial to the animal, or the animal wouldn't have survived!!" But that's just saying that evolution is true because the theory of evolution is true. Likewise if wings formed from long appendages spreading out somehow. You could construct some sort of story about gliding animals with flabby-assed arms developing into winged animals, but unless you're really wedded to your account and really want it to work out, you'll probably see that flabby arms probably wouldn't be a good thing or help animals glide. Sticking to birds - lots and lots of traits must have concurrently evolved in order to make a bird: hollow bones, feathers, wings (probably more). Now, all of these traits seem to work well together (hollow bones make the bird light so it can fly using wings and feathers), but none of the traits seem to be beneficial unless they're paired with the other ones. Quick, name a non-bird with feathers? You mean feathers didn't "stick" as a trait? Okay, maybe the hollow bones came first - name a non-flying animal with hollow bones? Okay, so that doesn't seem to be very beneficial by itself, except as something to help you fly. Wings? Same idea. I'm not a creationist (not even a Christian/Jew/Muslim), and I don't believe in that shite, but there does seem to be a conspicuous order to the way parts of an organism work together. I know, evolution tries to explain this by saying that the reason the parts work so well is that those traits stuck over time. Step back for a minute and think about something as complex as the eye. Soooo many things have to work in perfect order for an eye to work - how the hell could something like that have evolved the way Darwin says things evolve? I'm not saying "evolution" is wrong. Of course things evolve. I'm saying Darwin's way of explaining evolution has some problems as far as I'm concerned. I'm happy to be proved wrong, though.