Good article about evolution


#1

Hello all, I found this very interesting atricle showing that evolution is still an unproven theory:

tldm.org/News8/evolutionAntiScience.htm

Regards,
Noel.


#2

Oh dear. Not a very good article I’m afraid.

In 1925 at the revolutionary Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee, leading scientists of the day presented the tooth of the “Nebraska Man” as proof of the theory of evolution.

Incorrect, “Nebraska Man” was never mentioned at the Scopes Trial. See this link.

Despite the fraud, the victorious Scopes trial launched evolutionary theory into the public classroom.

I think that should say “the US Classroom”, Europe had then, and has now, much less of a problem with teaching evolution. I am not aware of any european equivalent of the law about teaching evolution that was used at the Scopes trial. And I hardly think that the trial was a victory for evolution since Scopes was found guilty.

Fr. David Becker, editor of the creationist magazine, Watchmaker, mentions that this encyclical "was written in 1950-before the discovery of DNA, and when the Piltdown Hoax was still heavy evidence for evolution.

By 1950 Piltdown was ignored by most evolutionary biologists, so it was hardly “heavy” evidence. It was an obvious “odd man out” from all the other evidence being discovered in Africa, Europe and Asia. By 1950 there was a lot of evidence apart from Piltdown:

1856 – Neanderthal man discovered
1856 – Dryopithecus discovered
1859 – Origin of Species published
1869 – Cro Magnon man discovered
1890 – Java Man discovered
1903 – First molar of Peking man found
1907 – Heidelberg man discovered
1908 – Dawson (1908-1911) discovers first Piltdown fragments
1915 – Piltdown II found by Dawson (according to Woodward)
1921 – Rhodesian man discovered
1924 – Dart makes first Australopithecus discovery.
1929 – First skull of Peking man found.
1934 – Ramapithecus discovered
1935 – Many (38 individuals) Peking man fossils have been found.
1935 – Swanscombe man [genuine] discovered.

Some proposed (correctly) that the Piltdown skull and jaw were from different species. See this link.

A universal law of the cosmos is the Law of Entropy, also known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Entropy means the steady disorganization of a closed system, which is witnessed by all of us on a daily basis. If you do not put energy into cleaning and organizing your room, for instance, it naturally tends towards disorganization; it becomes messy. The Second Law states that the universe is going from the organized to the less organized. Evolutionary theory, however, states just the opposite: species are tending towards greater organization and complexity, in opposition to the universally applicable Law of Entropy. How can this be?

Another old creationist chestnut. The earth is not a “closed” system, the sun is constantly pumping energy into the earth. Some of this energy can be used to decrease entropy on earth, provided the entropy of the Sun increases to compensate. Using the analogy of the messy room, we can tidy one corner of a room (reduce its entropy) by throwing everything that shouldn’t be there into another corner, which will increase the entropy of the other corner by making it even messier. Another example is a fridge. It uses energy to decrease entropy inside (by cooling) while increasing entropy outside (by heating). That is why a fridge has cooling fins at the back. If you stop supplying energy to the fridge by switching it off then the inside will warm up. [Do **not try this at home without your parents permission boys and girls.]

Let us now consider physical evidence regarding this theory. In order to demonstrate that evolution did in fact occur, evidence of transitional forms between species (showing the transition from one species to another, such as from a reptile to a bird) must exist. And these transitional-form fossils (if they exist) must be very numerous, as they are a record of a very long period of evolution, leaving a “trail”, so to speak, in the rock strata. Is there evidence for this occurrence? No, there is not.

Oh yes there is. See here and here and here. I could go on but it would just get boring. Are you really that interested in marine invertebrates?

I did not bother to read more. There are enough errors in the first few paragraphs to show that the writer is just recycling known and already refuted creationist arguments. Even a small amount of research would have shown that they were making incorrect statements.

Not very interesting at all.

rossum


#3

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.