ben kenobie wrote:Getting back on topic, I'll explain why Evolution is false. But the idea Darwin initially had was right. I'll start with how Darwin came up with the idea of Evolution. Darwin noticed that living organisms had the ability to change and adapt to their environment. While studying a the Galopagos Islands, he noticed that each island had finches (a type of bird), but the finches were all different.
On islands where the birds could find food by sticking their beaks into crevices in the trees and logs, the finches had long, narrow beaks. On islands where woods were scarce, however, the finches had short, fat beaks that allowed them to burrow for food. Darwin imagined that at one time, both of these types of finches were the same. When the finches began living on separate islands, however, their species began to adapt to the different food sources, and after many, many generations, they developed different kinds of beaks that were appropiate for the different food supply on each island.
Darwin was absolutely right on this point. Today, scientists have shown quite conclysively that species do have the ability to adapt and change in response to their environment. For example, in 1977, there was a major drought on Daphne, one of the Galopagos Islands. Researchers had been measuring the beak sizes of finches on that island for some time, and they continued to measure beak sizes long after. They found that the very next generation of finches on the island has beaks that were, on average, about 5% larger than the generation of finches that existed prior to the drought. Since the drought caused a shortage of seeds on the island, the finches with larger beaks were better able to crack open the few, tough seeds left on the island. Thus, the size of the finches beaks varied in response to the drought. FACT
In 1983, there were strong rains on the same island. This resulted in an abundance of seeds for the finches on the island. Sure enough, scientists who were measuring beak sizes noteced that, on average, the next generation of finches had smaller beak sizes. Once again, the finches adapted to a change in their environment. Since seeds were plentiful, a large beak provided no specific advantage for survival. Thus, the finch beaks began to decrease in size again. These two instances really showed that Darwin's idea was right. The population of finches could indeed adapt to changes in their surroundings from generation to generation. FACT
Even though Darwin was right on this point, he was dead wrong when he tried to extrapolate his data. (Extrapolation-Following an established trend in the data even though there is no data availible for that region) He said that since species have the ability to change, they should be able to change into a different species. In other words, if a population of finches can, through several generations, slowly develop different beaks, why can't they also develop different wings, heads, bodies, and feet so that they change into eagles? Why can't after many years of such change, develop into a completely new species? Darwin thought that this could, indeed, happen. This idea became the foundation for the theory of evolution.
The problem is that Darwin made a big mistake in extrapolation. He took small changes that he observed in animals and extrapolated them into huge changes. Darwin noticed that the finches on the Galapagos Islands had changed their beaks, their feather color, and (to some extent) their body sizes to adapt to the environment of each different island. Those kinds of changes, however, are very small compared to the kinds of changes necessary to turn a finch into a completely different species of bird. Thus, Darwin took a small amount of data and tried to make a huge extrapolation with it!
I got this from my 10th grade chemistry book, and the author, a Christian and creationist, used this as an example of an unwise "extrapolation." You can't take a small amount of something you know is fact, such as finches being able to slightly change due to changes in their environment, and then say that because they can change a little over a little amount of time, they can change a lot over a large amount of time.
Darwin's evolution had more problems than just that with it. It was a basic theory and didn't have nearly as much accumulated evidence and detail as modern theory suggests. That said, as you pointed out it is practically impossible to attempt to disprove adaptation. Evolution on a larger scale hasn't been proved (and taking the literal view can never be proved, just made likely beyond doubt), but honestly "extrapolation" is necessary in any attempt to analyze events of the past. Macroevolution pretty much can't happen in a laboratory environment, so making inferences of our past is the only way to deal with our origins.
I personally tend to believe whatever side has the most evidence. I don't subscribe to the idea that when nothing fits perfectly you throw up your hands and go "
I dunno!" When it comes to our origins, it seems that the explanations most people follow are either evolution or one of several creation stories told by various peoples from various times that have the same lack of evidence and inherent trust. I'm sorry, but it's kind of the same way I view the Electoral College (sorry people outside of the US, don't bother with our arcane political systems, this will be over soon). It has its faults, but the other alternatives are pretty stupid. Either there is a scientific explanation for the gaps in evolutionary theory or we need to start from scratch. What we shouldn't do is look for truth in suspicious stories passed down from before recorded history.
Man, this got back to religion again. OK, look, my point is that we need to look for a scientific answer, and if you don't agree with evolution then bring a competitive theory. Seriously! I want the truth, and if its so wrong then provide either A) evidence that refutes evolution (this would be a good starting point) or B) a realistic and legitimate alternative. Either one be a cornerstone contribution to science, for reals. Sorry to be so harsh in responding to your post ben, but pressure just tends to build up in this thread. You've got to let it out sometime.
<---- recognizes irony
