Tyler1

I think Darwin's uncle was the first to come up with evolutionary theory.
What was Darwin wrong about?

Quote
Darwin's theory of evolution (including common descent) is still very questionable but I would say that common ancestry is looking to fit the evidence. Darwin was no doubt wrong about many factors of evolution though and he is known mainly just to be the person who suggested the basic idea of common descent and concepts of evolution. Quote

u ne la nv i u we tsi

Darwin's uncle did seem to have some ideas on a kind of evolution, but never really discussed it enough to know if he had really any ideas on the process that caused it. But he was definitely not the first person to think in those terms. There were people even in times before Christ that believed that simpler life changed over along period of time into more complex life but never really had theories on how.

Darwin believed that evolution happened while populations were large, but this has come into question with punctuated equilibrium theory which believes that evolution occurs faster in smaller isolated populations. Darwin also did not suggest an idea of mutation as the main cause of variation that natural selection acts upon and some of his ideas on how life could become varied were wrong. New mechanism for evolution are being purposed understood as time goes on and evolutionary theory is still be refined today. Some of the mechanisms are very well studied and others are a little more speculative. But many of them are based on details that Darwin could not possibly have known back in his time.

__________________

CSchultz

One major problem with Darwinian evolutionary theory is the fact that during his time he was operating on extremely limited understanding.

In Darwins time it was still believed that the atom was the smallest and most basic building block of matter.
In fact, based on discoveries made in the last century, "Darwins Hypothesis" is a better term than "Darwins Theory" because a theory must be based on sound scientific concepts.

Irreducable complexity has all but destroyed the entire concept of Darwinian evolution as well. You see, there is a point at which the complexity of an organism cannot be reduced, (De-Evolved) without making it impossible for that organism to have existed in the first place.

Bacterial flagellum is just one example of this. Bacterial flagellum is an organic propellar and motor assembly attached to the rear of many small bacteria. It is made up of over 40 individual components, each one equally necessary for it to function.

It simply could not have evolved. If any one of it's components is not in place the entore locomotion device would be unable to function and the bacteria would die.

Again, these (and thousands of other) facts were unknown during Darwins time.

I will agree that he had a pretty good theory, but it hasn't withstood 100 years of scientific discoveries.

smellycat

God made all God see,s all God knows all.everything else is human assumption.

__________________

1. GOOD BAD SALVATION

CSchultz

I agree with you completely Michael.
These theories and hypothesis are just repeats of the original sin. Man's arrogant attempt to become like God knowing all things.

The only reason Darwinian theory is still being taught in government schools is because the only other rational alternative is the Genesis account, which by the way still stands firm after over 6,000 years of scrutiny.

smellycat

who knows God,s extremes ,we have no idea.very little people in God,s big place.satan and all his robot,s want God,s power,but will never be worthy.with great power comes great responsibility.we still learning,just hope the ro,bots don,t distract us from truth,hurry up Jesus.

__________________

1. GOOD BAD SALVATION

Tyler1

He didn't need to explain on the molecular level how organims change over time just that they do. So, now we know that it is caused by variation in DNA, organisms still adapt to different environemts if the adaptation exists in the population.

Isn't punctuated equi. when a large population experiences a decrease in the number of organisms in a population able to pass on genetic info. so they have changed, like a bottle neck, my science is a little rusty.
I need to do a little reviewing .

u ne la nv i u we tsi

Actually it hasn't. Irreducible complexity has actually never been proven and there are evolutionary methods that have been discovered that can actually produce many of the examples that were previously given by IC advocates.

Each one is necessary for it to function the way it does. Does this mean it couldn't have evolved? Absolutely not. If you remove several of the parts you still get something fully functional. The bacterial flagellum being irreducibly complex specifically has been debunked. You can break the flagellum down into simpler parts that all have their own function. Starting with a simple passive pore to a selective pore, both are function at getting proteins into the periplasm (the latter actually selects certain proteins). The F1F0ATP Synthase is ancestral to the flagellum and can transport proteins. The Secretins are another piece that helped form the flagellum and when alone it transports proteins out of the cell. Adhesive proteins can become bound to the secretins which eventually will form the pilus (which can wiggle) which increases the chance of finding a substrate to attach to. The Tol-pal system, which alone functions to to transform protein across a membrane, causes the pilus to spin in a poor fashion. But this poorly spinning motion will increase dispersion allowing the bacteria to escape environments were nutrients are low. By this time, it is a proto-flagellum and still functional though not yet the Bacterial flagellum. The outer membrane of the sectretin splits to become the P-ring, which stabilizes the proto-flagellum to move more freely. Signal transduction proteins bind its function specifically to the environment. Out of the 42 proteins that make up the flagellum, 40 are found in other systems. Each step of proposed evolution of the flagellum only needs the addition of a single protein, each step is functional and has a selective advantage over the previous form. Model was predicted in 2003, and confirmed through several experiments.

Though not everything he stated has help up. His important ideas of natural selection, and the hypothesis of common descent that went with the theory have held up.

Indeed he didn't need to explain, but he felt that he did at some point and when he did he was wrong. Now we know what the true causes are.

Bottle neck is a type of punctuated equilibrium. But in PE in general it is not necessary to have the large population in the first place. Punctuated equilibrium basically shows how swifter changes and quicker speciation occurs. This actually does show something that Darwin's theory did not and causes a lot quicker speciation under the right circumstances.

__________________

CSchultz

Well, then we could use the example of the human eye, the retina, pupil, iris, cornea, lens, optic nerve, 137 million special light sensitive cells, rods and cones. If each and every one of these systems and subsystems are not fully functional and in place, the entire eye simply will not work.

In my view, to believe that each one of these systems evolved simultaneously even though each was meaningless and useless prior to the completed eyeball contradicts the theory of natural selection.

In other words, each of these systems would have been useless for millions and millions of years and therefore should have disappeared over time.

I suppose we have a different definition of "held up."
When biologists from major Universities like Theodore Sargent resort to gluing dead moths to trees to fake theories, I would suggest that evidence to support said theory is a little hard to come by.

Just my opinion mind you.

I am enjoying this conversation, I learned a great deal while researching your last post.
Well stated and well done.

smellycat

we know God made us.complicated we are too,

__________________

1. GOOD BAD SALVATION