Difference between revisions of "Darwin’s Theory of Evolution"
m (1 revision) |
(username removed) |
||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
22, No. 1, 1988 p:89; | 22, No. 1, 1988 p:89; | ||
| + | ==References== | ||
| + | |||
[[Category:Umasking Evolution]] | [[Category:Umasking Evolution]] | ||
Revision as of 07:46, 25 May 2014
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
Evolution Says....
Darwin discovered exactly how evolution took place. His description of the process is fact
The Facts Are .....
(1) The theory of evolution is not a fixed theory as the general public are lead to believe. Evolution, especially biological evolution, "is currently beset by an almost bewildering array of diverse opinions".
Its mechanisms are not well established, as no one has yet put forward a scientifically sound mechanism for how it was all supposed to have taken place. New Scientist, October 15, 1988 p:66
(2) Because there were no real transitions or missing links in the fossil record, Richard Goldschmidt developed the 'hopeful monster theory' to explain the jumps between fossil types. The theory postulates, for example, that a bird hatched out of the egg of a dinosaur. American Scientist, Vol. 40, 1952 p:97
(3) Another theory put forward in 1980 as a mechanism for evolution by Dr Stephen Jay Gould, is called 'punctuated equilibrium'. This theory suggests that species stayed the same for millions of years and then all of a sudden, there was a giant leap (saltation). Each saltation led to an entirely different form. According to this theory some super gene which is especially effective in early embryonic development produces the dramatic change. The new organism survives because it is supposedly better than its parents. Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 1, January, 1980 p:127; Natural History, Vol. 86. No. 6, p:22-30
(4) When Steven Gould first proposed his theory of punctuated equilibrium, he did so without providing one single example as proof that it worked. Scientists see that there is no proof, but it is nevertheless gaining in popularity among them. Natural History, Vol. 86. No. 6, p:28; New Scientist, Vol. 101, February 9, 1984
p:34-35
(5) "The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. Apart from the obvious sampling problems inherent to the observations that stimulated the model, and apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground." Written by Robert E. Ricklefs (Department of Biology, University of Pennsylvania, USA) in his article "Paleontologists Confronting Macroevolution" in Science, Vol. 199 January 6, 1978 p:59
(6) Sir Fred Hoyle & Chandra Wickramasinghe have proposed a theory that life on earth came from viruses showered on the earth by passing comets. Mathematician Dr Mike Hendy (Massey University, New Zealand) has traced the 'evolutionary' trees of various strains of flu collected since 1933. He has calculated that the probability of them evolving on their own comet was one chance in 1058. These calculations show that the theory of life from outer space could not reasonably account for even the recent history of the flu, let alone evolution itself. The Sydney Morning Herald, January 31, 1987 p:3
(7) Francis Crick, Nobel-Prize winner and co-discoverer of the DNA double-helix, believes that there is virtually no chance that the first life could have risen spontaneously from Earth's chemistry as a
'primordial soup'. His theory is that the first living cells were brought here by a spaceship from outside our solar system. Discover, October, 1981 p:62-67 & 256; Francis Crick "Life Itself", Simon & Schuster: New York, 1981 p:117-141
(8) A theory was proposed by Dr Graeme Cairns-Smith (University of Glasgow, Scotland) in the 1960's which suggests that clay was the site of the first life on earth. This hypothesis is based on the knowledge that clays can store and transfer energy, and act as catalysts. This hypothesis is not accepted these days as a valid theory. The Age, April 4, 1985 p:7; Scientific American, February, 1991 p:100-109; Biosystems, Vol.
22, No. 1, 1988 p:89;