Holes In The Theory of Evolution

I’m speaking here of the idea that humans and other mammals evolved from a common ancestor. This common ancestor is not always named. Once upon a time it was “Lucy”, then came Homo erectus, after that, “Turkana Boy,” followed by Neanderthal and now we have a new South African neighbor called Homo naledi (That sounds like na lady?). So are….are we gonna have “na gentlemen” in the near future? ….Very funny mind games!

Secondly, there are questions that I want answered by evolutionists. Kindly note that the core concept of evolution, including natural selection, was based on Darwinian principles and according to Richard Dawkins, Darwin was completely wrong about genetics and hereditary. So this leaves us with his classification simply based on anatomy. I have faced many objections from proponents of evolution saying that the theory was not based exclusively on similarities in anatomy. So what new evidence do they have?

Questions:

(1) If evolution is a fact how did the human heart evolve, since all locomotive mammals and possibly other organisms must poses a heart from the moment of existence.

(2) If evolution is a fact how did the sexes of animals originate? Since micro-organisms such as viruses, bacteria, protozoons and even trees are asexual.

(3) Evolutionists have consistently failed to show us all the “missing links” between chimp and human, fish and bird, amphibian and reptile, cockroach and spider etc. Please show us all the missing links.

(4) Every organism, even of the same parentage, has a unique immune system (please don’t confuse it with antibiotic resistance) that, after first infection, automatically gives the organism a lifetime immunity from the disease. Will you say such a specialized system evolved or was designed?

With this unanswered questions, I think I have punched four holes in the theory of evolution, case closed. Evolution is even more of a philosophy than a science because it is not immediately observable. DID anyone see one organism transform into another? DID Darwin see it? DID you see it? If no, case closed.

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Holes In The Theory of Evolution

    • I’m glad you found it funny but I wasn’t aware at all that I sounded funny. I would be happy if you could put your cards on the table.

      Like

  1. Well then, I don’t know how to put this diplomatically. You don’t understand biology. Your description of the immune system makes that plain. I’m afraid I can’t help there; not enough time.
    But you also seem to misunderstand scientific theory. You make too much of it, I think. It is simply a process of observation, putative explanation, prediction, test, revision – repeat. Evolutionary theory got started as a putative explanation for a couple of observations: Species do not appear to be monolithic, and the distribution of their forms over space and time appears to vary with environment. The latter is evolution. Theories of evolution are attempts to explain that observation.
    If you want to negate all theories of evolution, then you’ll need to debunk the primary observation. Good luck.
    If you want to supplant the prevailing theory, it’s easy – just come up with an alternative which makes better predictions.

    Like

    • Of course I will never understand biology the way the evolutionary biologist understands it and I think I have always made that clear. My job is to simplify what I know for my readers to understand. If the evolutionary biologist wants us to subscribe to or believe in evolution, it’s his job to selflessly help all of us to understand. My description of the immune system is in relation to its basic function.

      With regards to your description of the scientific process, I will say that in terms of the evolution theory, that process will never give us anything ultimately and wholly coherent or concrete as long as the process keeps being repeated with “new discoveries” here and there. Moreover, it is indeed true that species do not appear to be monolithic and their forms appear to vary with environment but the same is also true of creationism (not necessarily Judaeo-christian version), that a certain supreme entity designed and originated each taxonomic group and varied them according to their environment. Fishes cannot fly just as birds cannot live under water but anatomical similarities between a specific fish and a specific bird does not suggest a common ancestor.

      Your last point seem funny to me. It can be interpreted to mean that, because one man is blind and the other can see, the blind man must accept the directions of the “seeing” man since he himself cannot make the way out. Science is just one way of getting factual knowledge. And what are facts without interpretation?

      Our ancestors used herbs long before the scientific method was invented. Will you say that because they didn’t know or understand the chemical components of the herbs, the herbs did not provide cure?

      Like

      • You have to be motivated to understand. Your motive is not to understand, but to reinterpret on your own terms.
        That’s OK as a bridging strategy, but not as a means of coming to an understanding of a specific subject.
        Along the same lines, yes, people used things like foxglove without knowing anything about sodium and potassium channels. Scientific method arose from the kind of basic, systematic observation – and its discontents – in which our ancestors engaged when they sorted out the desirable effects of various plants.
        One scientific innovation was stepping back from a priori interpretations. Rather than focusing on certain, desirable effects, the scientific project adopted a simpler motive: functional understanding.
        If you wish to make more of it, go ahead, but you are laying something metaphysical on top of the scientific landscape. That’s OK. People are motivated to do such things, just as they are motivated to pay attention to the desirable effects of various plants over the nuts and bolts of photosynthesis.
        Just don’t imagine that the overlay produces an understanding of the subject matter, or results from an understanding of the subject matter.

        Like

        • My motive is to understand but if understanding means effacing my initial position, then you are right, we will never come to a convergence. But so far so good. You made a very interesting point about the scientific method and I honestly am thankful for the contributions that science has made towards eradication of superstition. But the same science which relies heavily on physicalism, it appears, solves as much problems as it creates. If by the application of a certain scientific method, the air we breath could be made pure or global warming could be reversed, know that science is only undoing itself. For science is responsible for the pollution.

          Functional understanding is helpful in so far as it allows for acquisition of new knowledge and possible sifting of facts but does not necessarily improve the inherent properties of matter and the forces which govern it. My lack of knowledge of the chemistry of the nimtree or moringa does not necessarily disprove it’s efficacy in treating fever or malaria. Science is sometimes forced, sort of, to be cyclic or redundant, to tell us we must exercise in order to stay healthy when in fact our nomadic ancestors walked about a lot but didn’t know the health benefits. In other words, if we do not understand how something works, then it does not work. I hope you get my point.

          Of course, the overlay, which you mentioned may have little to do with the subject matter but it may also belong to a certain method of gathering knowledge or a method of knowing. Consider the shape of the earth which was predicted to be a sphere resting on nothing, long before science could prove it. So I think science and intuition work side by side but of course science helps with the understanding of the substructure, after which intuition takes over or vice versa.

          Like

          • That’s fine, if you are considering the place of evolutionary theories in a greater schema.
            But in the post, you are speaking within the subject, and to do that, you have to be specific, and specifically, to critique a theory on the basis of its soundness, you should be able to demonstrate an error in the basic observation upon which the theory is based or a failure of the theory’s predictive power based on a basic inconsistency in the theory’s structure.
            Otherwise, all you’ve got is an argument from incredulity, at best. At worst, a mere misunderstanding.

            Like

            • I’m not sure what you mean by “[mis]understanding.”Though I’m coming from one perspective and you are coming from another, I understand your conclusions but disagree with them. Theories are not formulated in vacuums. Everything in the universe is connected and specificism will erase essential gestaltian meanings relevant to us.

              A comprehensive critique of evolutionary theories is necessary because they all purport to employ the same scientific method of investigation. Moreover, they build on one another, beginning with Darwin’s “Origin of Species.” So here, I’m not just critiquing the theory but also the process of arriving at such theory; and I’m saying that the scientific process (in relation to the evolution theory) is compromised with predictive or intuitive knowing which science itself condemns. The process is heavily infused with imagination.

              Pieces of jawbone or thighbone or skull is insufficient evidence to lead us to make such fine retrospective conclusions. DNA tests that determine the genotype and age of fossils are not 100% accurate.

              So, in conclusion, the evolution theory is mostly philosophical. This brings us back to the initial point, none has seen God likewise none has seen one organism transform into another. How do you expect us not to believe in a folk writer’s account of an incident purported to have occurred millions of years ago but an artist’s impression “based on evidence” of similar incidents of the same period?

              Like

  2. My friend, I can see you are open and asking questions, and so your phrase “case closed” is confusing to me. It’s a message that you aren’t willing to listen. There is a good discussion above. I like that both of you kept talking through the frustrating parts. So I see you are willing to listen, despite your camouflage.

    By human heart, do you mean a heart with the passion that humans feel? I assume that’s what you mean. And yes, isn’t that a pertinent question. Along those lines, how can we explain our brain? All mammals have a brain, but look what ours has done! These questions seem vastly beyond the ability of scientists to explain, and possibly are the reason why many people choose to have a God behind all those astonishing bits of human capability. I do not find explanation through a deity, but I can see why another might.

    I do not see a contradiction between some animals existing as asexual and some existing as sexual. Are you aware that some sexual animals can switch to asexual in extreme conditions? Those two methods of procreation seems so similar to me, that I am impressed, but not suspicious that they are related.

    Having studied only the basics in my four years of anthropology, I was astonished at how many links are there! How many delicious and intriguing links between our hominid ancestors and ourselves. Changes in tooth structure, changes in where the spinal cord attaches to the brain, changes in hip structure, changes in the length of gestation. It’s brilliant, and to me it is very clear that 21st century humans are a result of those early beings. I was so interested to discover how many different lines of human species existed alongside each other, interbreeding and mixing the whole thing up into a fabulous DNA stew.

    Your fourth question is confusing to me, because I can’t see your point. My answer would be yes, I believe immune systems evolved, like all our other natural defenses. And I can’t see why this is particularly unsuited for evolution.

    You yearn to know more. You want to make scientists, like everyone else, work for it. In other words, you don’t want any of them to be able to speak without being challenged, and I agree with that idea. The lovely thing is about scientists, they WANT to be challenged. They want us to ask questions. They want us to demand that they prove themselves. Tawia, that is what science *is.* Nearly all of science is “scientific theory,” so your point is correct in a way. It’s not necessarily philosophy, but I feel confident that the good scientists are remaining humble in their field.

    I know you well enough to be impressed with your intelligence, and I am absolutely convinced of your ability to understand, when presented with data. Maybe your frustration is due to not having found the information you desire?

    Liked by 1 person

    • My good friend, I don’t intend to present an appearance of frustration or camouflage at all in exchanging ideas . “Case closed” was just used as a figure of speech.

      By human heart, I mean the workings of and more specifically the organ itself. Did the left ventricle evolve first, waiting for the right ventricle to evolve? That will be ridiculous. Did the thoracic cavity gradually make way for the whole heart to gradually evolve into its current structure, then the organism will have died long ago.

      There is no evidence as to the sex switch from sexual to asexual in any hominid. The only evidence found was in regard to certain fishes, amphibians and maybe reptiles and microorganisms. Also, sex switch may be a gradual but complete change in the biological setup of an organism including a change of its sex organs. I don’t see any problem with that.

      Scientists always speak of discovering real “missing links” but to convince us they present drawings or artist impressions. That evidence is still insufficient. Maybe we would have to visit some paleontological museum and see for ourselves.

      Every organism dies with its antibodies which is not passed on to its offsprings. So in a away, each immune system has its own unique history and does not evolve in the sense of the word – thereby giving the organism automatic immunity against certain disease. It has to “learn” about the person’s peculiar life condition and build immunity as the need arises.

      Science, though it allows questioning of its theories, is gradually trying to usurp religion and do the same things that it accuses religion of, that is to make certain claims without sufficient proof, back it with authority and suggest that people take the claims to be true and live by it.

      My position for now is simple – “Deus sive Natura.” God is Nature.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I don’t know that many scientists use the expression “the missing link,” but rather the people who don’t understand science do. I would guess that a scientist finds a fascinating connection, and the publisher who prints a headline writes “Scientist Find Missing Link!” It’s a poor expression, implying that there is one link, one example of the connection, one stage between ancient hominids and modern humans. When there are billions of stages, how can a single link be possible?

        …which leads to the question about the heart, it evolved just like limbs, like fingernails, like eyes. How DID the heart evolve? It’s baffling for me to even consider. If there is someone who knows each of the millions of steps, it would probably take a month to explain.

        I worry about any group stating any kind of conclusion and insisting that people follow without question. It’s what people around the world are fighting against. Sadly, there appear to be even more people fighting for it. In the US we call that “drinking the Kool Aid,” and it only spells doom to the people who agree to it.

        Liked by 1 person

        • R. Dawkins often uses the word “a link.”

          “If there is someone who knows each of the millions of steps, it would probably take a month to explain.”— Exactly. No one knows my friend.

          Be well.

          Liked by 1 person

Share your thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s