the theory of evolution is bunk.

16 posts / 0 new
Last post
TRJon's picture
the theory of evolution is bunk.

First of all. Don't tell me I'm too stupid or uneducated to understand it. I'm neither.

It's precisely because I'm educated that it just doesn't work. I'm not going to accept a theory without thinking about it. And this theory is lacking.

Theoretically, all life started out as simple chemical reactions. Due to evolutionary forces, chemicals that replicated were the ones that remained.

Fine... I'll buy that so far.

Then... at some point... DNA... and then... single celled organisms. Then multicelluar organisms. And then these organisms and ecosystems just... totally change planet wide every once in awhile, with almost no in between state. This is where it all breaks down.

1. Why can't we reproduce this chemical phenomena of the creation of life, and why isn't it still happening? We still have single celled organisms all the way up through full blown multicellular oganisms. So why can't we find really simple non-DNA life also in this chain? The truth is... if evolution is a big chain, the beginning is missing.

2. Why DNA? Everyone acts like it makes sense that every single thing on this planet has DNA. There's no REASON for it to be this way however. If DNA could evolve, then other entirely different forms of replicating lifeforms should have formed also. I'm always reading about how a banana and a person have almost exactly the same DNA. That seems... odd.

3. If random mutation causes evolution... then why are mutations so rare and so often fatal? For a 'positive' mutation to occur, there must be millions of 'negative' mutations. And yet everything we know about lifeforms show us that they are designed to not have mutations. And going all the way back through the fossil record, you rarely find animals with mutations. So, if evolution was driven by mutation... then how did we get from dinosaurs to humans without them?

4. Missing links. Everyone acts like just because damn near all the 'links' are missing in evolution, it doesn't matter. It matters.

5. Irreducible complexity. I have read zillions of articles talking about how this is such a stupid idea. Well... no it's not.

6. Time scale problem. No matter how many billions of years we think Earth has been here... it's still not enough time for random chemicals to randomly evolve into a guy studying a spider in venezuela, according to a lot of people.

SO HERE IS A THEORY I PULLED OUT OF MY #SS JUST TO SHOW THAT WE SHOULD STILL BE LOOKING FOR NEW THEORIES

1. Life did not evolve on this planet. That is why there is no evidence that it did.

2. Life, maybe in the form of highly advanced single celled organisms came to this planet on a meteor or something. And when I say 'highly advanced' I mean, basically what we have today. I just think single celled organisms are more advanced than we give them credit for. We still know surprisingly little about them.

3. These single celled organisms are more like nanobots. With highly intelligent DNA code. They basically have some type of 'cellular rogramming' and they 'evolved' out in a branching, yet symbiotic way to create an ecosystem for the planet. They then evolved up into multicellular organisms. And at all times, there is a bunch of communications going on between all the cells on this planet, keeping the biosystem going.

4. Any time there is a major climate shift, all of the larger, multi cellular organisms die. But the single celled organisms survive. The single celled organisms then 'evolve back up into multicellular organisms' once again, that are adapted to the new environment. So let's say our planet heats up and methane flows out of the ground and our nitrogen atmosphere becomes a methane one. We all die. But then the planet is covered in methane-eating bacteria that then evolve over a milliion geneartions into methane breathing worms and so on, until methane breathing intelligent monkeys are walking around, wondering what killed off all of the people they find in the fossil records

5. This is why DNA is epigenetic. Evolution is not through random mutation, but rather an adaptive response to major environmental changes. So we evolve... but it is in response to our environment, according to some genetic algorithm in our cells, rather than random mutation.

This theory explains why there are no links, no mutations, no original life, and why everything has DNA, etc.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Nyarlathotep's picture
It is painfully clear from

It is painfully clear from your questions and statements, you don't know much about the theory of evolution. Authoring meaningful criticism of a theory without understanding the theory is pretty much impossible.

AmericanAtheist's picture
I lost brain cells reading

I lost brain cells reading this, evolution is not even up for a debate anymore, are you a scientist?

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
"the theory of evolution is

"the theory of evolution is bunk"

The theory of evolution, is the theory that evolution(a fact) happens to all species on this planet. Micro Evolution

So the theory would predict that any species will adapt to any new environment which is exposed to.
Thus with generations, the better adapted offspring will most likely survive while the less adapted will die out.
Thus with enough time(millions of years for big animals like a rabbit), the old version ends up going extinct in a particular new environment while the new version becomes dominant.
eg; 49 unique rabbit breeds(not counting the extinct ones)

Now there are some evolutionists that go overboard with this, and proposed the idea of Macro Evolution which states:
That over an even longer period of time a specie may become a completely new specie.
eg; finches become crows.

The Micro Evolution states that a species EVOLVED/adapted to a particular environment.
There is real tangible convincing evidence for this.

Let us address your points now:

"Theoretically, all life started out as simple chemical reactions. Due to evolutionary forces, chemicals that replicated were the ones that remained."
That is not evolution, we do not know how the first life on earth originated, there are hypothesis on this subject like Abiogenesis.
http://www.britannica.com/science/abiogenesis

"1. Why can't we reproduce this chemical phenomena of the creation of life."
Answer , maybe Abiogenesis hypothesis is complete bullshit, or maybe we don't have enough information on what actually happened to reproduce it a lab.

"The truth is... if evolution is a big chain, the beginning is missing."
Yes it is., but it is not even a chain.

"2. Why DNA?".....That seems... odd."
Why not?
If you are living on this planet, then it becomes logical that you adapted to the planet environment over millions of years even if you did not even originate on it.
Most biologists would agree that some bacteria could have come on earth from space itself on an asteroid or something.
Thinking that the earth is the first earth like planet in the universe is like thinking the world is flat.

"3. If random mutation causes evolution... then why are mutations so rare and so often fatal?"
One has to understand that mutations happen all the time but usually they are minor with no changes at all in the physical body.
It is MACRO evolution hypothesis which brought the idea that mutations can actually change an entire specie into another, thus huge changes to the body(massive mutations=deformations)
It actually is proposing the idea that some deformations(/massive mutations) could bring positive results when this is not supported by evidence at all.
Actually there is evidence against this idea, since every disabled person/animal that ever was recorded in history, either could not reproduce or could not be better then the standard person/animal. Thus no documented macro evolution ever occurred.
Also this hypothesis just throws in the bin the basic condition of having even more time for it to happen.

"4. Missing links. Everyone acts like just because damn near all the 'links' are missing in evolution, it doesn't matter. It matters."
It is true, they like to throw it under the carpet.

What are missing links?
Missing links are the links Darwin proposed that are needed to support his hypothesis of macro evolution in his paper Origin of man.
Links would be a series of species in between 2 different species that show a linear and gradual change.
There should be a good 12 -- 24 species in between to make the bold claim that one evolved from the other.
Man from Ape has 0 links (which could not be dismissed as a different branch entirely).

Not a single human bone fits an ape which should be expected if one specie is gradually changing to another unless one wants to make the even more extraordinary claim that random mutations changed all the bones at once every time.

He was very clear that if in 10 years after the release of his paper, the missing links are not found, then his hypothesis was wrong.
He estimated 10 years based on the rate of fossils being discovered of apes at the time.

Not only a 100+ years later no missing links were found but evidence of the contrary emerged from all aspects of science, DNA, Fossils of apes at earlier times, no fossils of humans after millions of years which was the requirement for macro evolution, Upright walking apes which Darwin thought it was a human trait, etc...

Basically Darwin was wrong in that paper but he clearly states that he could be wrong, as a good scientific person would.
Unfortunately some evolutionists/Darwinists influenced by politics are not as scientific.

"5. Irreducible complexity. I have read zillions of articles talking about how this is such a stupid idea. Well... no it's not."
Yea you are right, to claim that complexity comes from simplicity naturally you must provide extraordinary evidence.
It is an extraordinary claim but most do not want to admit to that, because they know that they have 0 evidence for it.

You cannot get a fridge out of a tree naturally, no matter how many times you throw pieces of copper at it.
Most people who do not understand the complexity of a Biological membrane will see this as a bad comparison when in fact it is a very very generous one.
To this day they still cannot show how the Biological membrane came into existence from much, much, much simpler Prokaryotic bacteria.
Cell Membranes complexity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y31DlJ6uGgE

A better analogy would be that a chair thrown in the air and suddenly/ magically was surrounded by the inside of a plane flying strait by some random events.
Yes it is that unbelievable, that is why they don't talk about it.

"6. Time scale problem."
Yea there is not enough time for human macro evolution to fit the theory since we are too drastically different from the proposed ancestor.(ape)

"1. Life did not evolve on this planet. That is why there is no evidence that it did."
"2. Life, maybe in the form of highly advanced single celled organisms came to this planet on a meteor or something."
Yea even an idiot should be able to get there just by looking at the evidence.
But some "scientist" haven't got to that level yet.
It is unbelievable that you find "scientists"/idiots that do not consider the meteorite hypothesis which is the most obvious natural choice.

"3. These single celled organisms are more like nanobots."
Actually one might say even more complex, in fact we still don't know how they came into existence even though the media claims we do.
The fact that we cannot even reproduce them naturally in a lab proves you should not listen to the media and actually go read a scientific paper.

"We all die. But then the planet is covered in methane-eating bacteria that then evolve over a million generations into methane breathing worms and so on, until methane breathing intelligent monkeys are walking around, wondering what killed off all of the people they find in the fossil records"

You are making the flawed assumption that macro evolution actually happens in that scenario.
Though your scenario does indeed show that the simpler it is the more resistant it is which is true.

"5. This is why DNA is epigenetic."
Could be, but it does not fit the evidence we have.
It does not explain the Cambrian explosion, it does not explain humans, and worst of all, there is little to no evidence for it.

"This theory explains why there are no links, no mutations, no original life, and why everything has DNA, etc."

It does, but so does magic and other hypothesis.
(what i am saying is that your guess does not explain how life originated but just pointing out the bad things in other hypothesis)
It does not explain No Mutations, actually it says nothing about mutations.

What do you mean; "It does not explain" "no original life"?

Yes it does explain why everything has DNA but so does every other hypothesis that includes earth in it, like macro evolution.

You have yet to support the claim that DNA is not an earth thing, that the earth environment does not influence bacteria to have such a structure, or that earth like planets promote such a structure.

You should check Panspermia hypothesis since you seem to be heading there.

http://www.panspermia-theory.com/

I think Panspermia hypothesis could have happened, and is more logical then Abiogenesis(shit hypothesis) but there is evidence that show that something more complex happened.

The Cambrian explosion needs to be explained to have a decent hypothesis that fits the evidence, until then, all the hypothesis could have happened but surly not the only thing that happened to create life on earth.

Nyarlathotep's picture
"Now there are some

"Now there are some evolutionists that go overboard with this, and proposed the idea of Macro Evolution which states:
That over an even longer period of time a specie may become a completely new specie.
eg; finches become crows."

that is where you go nutty Jeff. It is clear this happens.

mykcob4's picture
Your post is bunk. You have

Your post is bunk. You have any proof of your claims...No I didn't think so, because there isn't any.
Scientist have already proven that excited amino acids create life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

There is no prove that any live on earth came to this planet from another planet or meteor.

I suspect that you are really a theist posing as an atheist.

TurtleSkeptic22TT's picture
This is more of a response to

This is more of a response to your title/subject rather than the body of your paper. But atheism has nothing to do with evolution, so you being an atheist and rejecting evolution is irrelevant.

I wonder why you would even feel the need to mention you are an atheist when trying to discredit evolution? Do you feel it gains more credibility for your objections?

If so, that is silly. The merits of your claims against evolution are not based on you being atheist, theist or otherwise. Atheism is simply a disbelief in a god or gods and has no bearing on evolution whatsoever.

If you feel you have disproved evolution, don't waste your time talking about it here. Have your works submitted for peer review and collect your Nobel Prize!

The Pragmatic's picture
@atheistJon

@atheistJon

I'm answering the points where I feel I have something to comment...

"And this theory is lacking."
- That a theory is lacking, still does not mean it's not true.
- Microevolution has been observed and is fairly well documented by now. Do you think that is bunk?

"1. Why can't we reproduce this chemical phenomena"
- This is not part of the Theory of Evolution. This is the hypothesis Abiogenesis. If that hypothesis is wrong or unlikely, it does not "bunk" the Theory of Evolution.
- Perhaps we are lacking pieces of the puzzle. Perhaps the hypothesis is wrong.
"The truth is... if evolution is a big chain, the beginning is missing."
- Again, the start is not part of the Theory of Evolution.

"why isn't it still happening?"
- Who says it isn't? If it isn't, maybe the conditions for it does not apply any more?

"why can't we find really simple non-DNA life also in this chain?"
- Perhaps it evolved into DNA-based life and got outdone by the new and improved competition? Perhaps no evidence of such microscopic proportions have persisted?

"Everyone acts like it makes sense that every single thing on this planet has DNA. There's no REASON for it to be this way however."
- If, as the Theory of Evolution states, all life originated from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool, does it not make sense that DNA has been the basic component throughout all life from a certain point?

"...then other entirely different forms of replicating lifeforms should have formed also."
- What do you mean by this? Entirely different? In what regard?

"3. If random mutation causes evolution... then why are mutations so rare and so often fatal?"
- For each new generation the genes are copied, or copied and merged. Each time the copy/merge happens, small variations occur. Normally, these variations have little effect. Large mutations are a completely different story.

"going all the way back through the fossil record, you rarely find animals with mutations."
- Eh what? What are you expecting to find? A three legged Velociraptor? The poor bastard who would get a mutation of that kind would likely not survive, nor be able to reproduce. As such, it would not spread it's genes, and there would be only one single specimen of that creature, who would then have to die in such a way that a fossil would be preserved. Such fossils would be extremely rare.

--- On to your "rectal exodus" hypothesis... :D

"1. Life did not evolve on this planet. That is why there is no evidence that it did."
- Not impossible. But what kind of evidence would you expect should have been found? 3.5 billion year old fossils of something smaller than single cell organisms that are preserved in such detail it can be determined that it was the cause of life? Perhaps it will be found, but there might not be any such evidence left, even if Abiogenesis is correct.

"2. Life, maybe in the form of highly advanced single celled organisms came to this planet on a meteor or something."
- What I find most unlikely about that hypothesis, is that these organisms would be tough enough to survive the trip and even more so, the impact on Earth. I find it very unlikely, that something like that could happen by chance. Even more unlikely that it would hit a planet within the Goldilocks zone in a stable and suitable solar system. Add to this that such a meteor travelling the vast distances of space would also take an enormous amount of time. And if we assume that the estimated age of the universe is correct, some 14 Billion years, and you say that there was too little time for Abiogenesis to happen on Earth, where does that leave this hypothesis? There would hardly be time for life to evolve elsewhere either. Especially since there would have to be a few generations of stars exploding first, to create the elements necessary for life to arise at all.
- If it where not by chance, are you saying that life have evolved elsewhere and consciously spread it to Earth? How do you propose life had time to develop elsewhere and make the trip here? Where are the evidence for anything of that kind? (Note that I still find this way more likely than the magical God hypothesis).

"3. These single celled organisms are more like nanobots. With highly intelligent DNA code. They basically have some type of 'cellular rogramming' and they 'evolved' out in a branching, yet symbiotic way to create an ecosystem for the planet. They then evolved up into multicellular organisms."
- How does this not include the same problem you mentioned earlier: "Everyone acts like it makes sense that every single thing on this planet has DNA"?

mykcob4's picture
Check this out:
Sir Random (Tieler) 's picture
"Just another troll just

"Just another troll just coming round the bend, hmmm hmm hmmmmm hm.........."

MCD's picture
troll alert

troll alert

Paradox225's picture
You are right on target . But

You are right on target . But the problem is that you , me or any of the top level scientist in these mortal world do not know the answer .
And the worst part is that we don't have any other theories that those of Darwin's , Lamark's theory ...
Those theory fit pretty accurately . But yes there are lots of question left to be answered.
And because none of those theories (or any other theory that we know) answer those questions , then there is / are some faults or lies we are being told for many centuries .....

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

No
Diotrephes's picture
If evolution isn't a fact

If evolution isn't a fact then why aren't new organisms exact replicas of the previous organisms? For instance, current humans should look and behave as the first human. There would not be any variations if there were no evolutionary forces at work.

Randomhero1982's picture
Quite possibly the most

Quite possibly the most retarded post I've read on here...

xenoview's picture
TRJon

TRJon
TLDR. Do you have your Nobel for debunking evolution?

MCD's picture
Thank you for your opinions

Thank you for your opinions about evolution. Opinions are like assholes. Please publish your scientific findings and pick up your nobel prize. Until then you are just another ___ with an opinion

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.