Objections to Darwin

[alextemplet]

Actually, Darwin's book did mention evolution, and his entire point in writing it was to show that all life is descended from a single common ancestor. I wonder where you get your information; perhaps your sources are not quite fully credible?

[canalon]

The origin of species was actually entitled 'On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life' and his book never once mentioned evolution- this word was used later by others. Are we talking about evolution within species, ie. natural selection, or evolution from one species to another because although i believe that there can be changes within a species, i dont think there is substantial evidence to support evolution from one species to another

But changes within a species give rise to new species after enough time... That is all what evolution is about.

[alextemplet]

Canalon wrote:

But changes within a species give rise to new species after enough time... That is all what evolution is about.

Yes, but sadly this seemingly-obvious point is far too often missed by some of evolution's detractors.

[Linn]

YES!

The origin of species was actually entitled 'On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life' and his book never once mentioned evolution- this word was used later by others. Are we talking about evolution within species, ie. natural selection, or evolution from one species to another because although i believe that there can be changes within a species, i dont think there is substantial evidence to support evolution from one species to another

This I agree with
Linn

[Linn]

Canalon wrote:

But changes within a species give rise to new species after enough time... That is all what evolution is about.

Yes, but sadly this seemingly-obvious point is far too often missed by some of evolution's detractors.

Proof?

[alextemplet]

alextemplet wrote:
Canalon wrote:

Quote:
But changes within a species give rise to new species after enough time... That is all what evolution is about.


Yes, but sadly this seemingly-obvious point is far too often missed by some of evolution's detractors.


Proof?

Haven't we covered this already?

[Linn]

I'm going mind blank! What are some scientific objections to Darwin's theory of natural selection?
Thanks!

I'll try to stay on the subject and ignore certain sarcastic little remarks.

One objection is that since Darwin's theory has been linked to evidence from fossils that there should be proof. No proof has been presented
The geographic record has not given us a graduated progression of change.

[catfishjim]

I would like to point out that Alfred Russell Wallace came upon evolution first and Darwin took the credit for it. He was doing research in the Malay Archipelago while Darwin was crouched in a corner sobbing because he didnt know what to put in his origin of species, which he had delayed publishing for 20 years until he thought that Wallace's paper would beat him to the punch

Darwin was always convinced of the vaildity of evolution (even his grandfather believed in it in the 1700s!). But on his trip to South America, aside from the specialized Galapagos species he observed, it was geological evidence of the earth's great age that gave him what he was missing. And at the urging of Lyell, he did actually publish an outline of his theory 20 years before Wallace. Afterward, Wallace always said that his main contribution had been in motivating darwin to finally publish the full text.

[Linn]

Objection #2

Natural Selection
That nature "selected" the fittest things to survive, and that these things aquired new features to help them . In other words they slowly evolved.

While it is true that fit things do survive, there is no evidence to show how they arrived.

[catfishjim]

Objection #2

Natural Selection
That nature "selected" the fittest things to survive, and that these things aquired new features to help them . In other words they slowly evolved.

While it is true that fit things do survive, there is no evidence to show how they arrived.

???

[Linn]

to M
previously I wrote:


Think!

A lion is considered one of those fittest things.

does the geological record show their sudden arrival?
YES!

But, can we find a fossil showing the transition to a lion from a lower form, as evoltionist believe?
And, if one of those lions was more fit than an other, his offspring were still all just lions.
because they were created as is.
Genes are arranged in such a way to prevent changes. improvements such as size etc yes but not evolution.

Isnt the survival of the fittest one of the cornerstones of evolutionary faith that got the whole ball rolling?

Is it or not. Just wondering

To solve the above dilemma that there is no evidence of gradual change,evolutionists had to come up with an explanation. Since they could find no record showing gradual change, they theorized that it must have thus happened by jerks and starts.
Some biologists believed that new species may be produced by sudden, drastic changes in genes (punctuated equilibrium).
Whatever theory you want to go by, it still does not explain there is still that problem with the fossil record.

Keep digging for another hundred or years!



added just for you M
..they theorized that it must have thus happened by jerks and starts not at a steady pace, by sudden drastic changes in genes. The species maintain their "equilibrium" or stay about the same, but every once in a while there is a "punctuation" or a big jump to evolve in to something else.
Sorry that is the way I learned it a long time ago. Care to update me?

Also I had quoted Darwin, Jastrow (one of my favorite) W,R Thompson...
somewhere in these threads.
Linn
PS;
last post for a while
take care all
keep thinking

[mith]

Genes are arranged in such a way to prevent changes. improvements such as size etc yes but not evolution.

What? Where did you get that idea? And how can a gene tell when a change is going to be in size or speciation?