Netlinkaccess - All about Payroll Services and Accounting
*Home>>>Accounting Theory

Has The Theory Of Evolution Failed To Account For Its Main Tenets?


As Darwin confessed in the long chapter of his book titled "Difficulties of the Theory," the theory was failing in the face of many critical questions.
Darwin invested all his hopes in new scientific discoveries, which he expected to solve the "Difficulties of the Theory." However, contrary to his expectations, scientific findings expanded the dimensions of these difficulties.
The defeat of Darwinism against science can be reviewed under three basic topics:
1) The theory can by no means explain how life originated on the earth.
2) There is no scientific finding showing that the "evolutionary mechanisms" proposed by the theory have any power to evolve at all.
3) The fossil record proves completely the contrary of the suggestions of the theory of evolution.

evolution isn't science science is something that can be proved through the scientific process and it cant be proven, ill believe you when you find an ape turned human(and proven it) also some scientists believe that there was a creator because of the impossibility of people coming from nonliving things its called the missing link cause its NOT THERE

The theory of evolution has been refind since Darwin first published "On the Origin of species". That is a very old book and the theory has been improved.

1) Evolutionary theory does not claim to explain how life originated on earth any more than the theory of gravity explains the invention of pro basketball.

2) There is strong evidence that genetic mutation and natural section are the mechanisms of evolution.

3) You have been given misnformation about this last point.

People who dismiss evolution as the absolute best answer as to how species got to be the way they are now need to go back to school, learn science, then study evolutionary biology and palentology.

The scientific community has not yet fully succummed to politics. When the MASSIVE MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS ARE CONVINCED that evolutionary thoery is still valid and every doctor that is licensed to practice medicine uses tht evolutionary theory as the foundation of their education, you can trust that there is no better answer as of yet.

I applaud you for your scientific attempt at disproving the scientific theory of evolution. At least you didn't tell me Genesis chapter 1 is the end all and be all and I will rot in hell.

I hope none other atheists are offended, by reveal in your power of independent intelligence.

Ladies and gentlemen this man is not a fundamentalist sheeple, congratulate him.

http://www.darwinism-watch.com/evolution...

do me a favor, if youre going to ask a question...dont make it a question thats already posted on a website...and make sure that website isnt a RELIGIOUS one...and TRY to makethe question not be this idiotic religious attempt to demonize science.

1) the theory was never meant to explain how life originated, nor does it try to.

2) evolutionary mechanisms do not evolve, life forms evolve.

3) the fossil record provides overwhelming evidence for evolution.

1) Evolution is not meant to explain the beginning of life. It is simply a mechanism for change. Biogenesis is a different beast, but can also be reasonably explained.
2) There is lots of evidence. Mutations happen all the time. How do you explain bugs, bacteria, or viruses changing themselves and their immunities so quickly?
3) The fossil record is incomplete, but still points towards evolution. Take a trip to the Smithsonian sometime. They have a very expansive collection of fossils, many of which show evolution working, changing things over time.

Tell me which has done more for mankind:science or religion?

So let's say you are right, let's say we just don't know. This does not prove anything relating to God.

I don't know how my XM Satellite radio works, but that doesn't mean that the hand of God is feeding music into my car with an invisible spoon.

Ignorance does not prove God, ignorance is merely a blank slate upon which to place or reject knowledge.

Wow.

#1 Has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution, as Evolutionary Theory doesn't address the origin of life. #2 is a basic ignorence of Scientific knowledge in general, given it even appears to reject adaption (sometimes called "Microevolution").

Do yourself a favour and check out PubMed:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query...

Finally, #3 is also in basic ignorence of the fossil record: Consider some of the many transition fossils discovered today.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-tran...

\/ To below: In some ways, we are still evolving. The development of HIV immunity and quirky nature of Sickle Cell Anemia are examples of this evolution. However, the discovery of technology has taken away many of the selective pressures of humanity and globalisation has made speciation all but impossible. This explains why we aren't seeing new species arising from humans.

Someone explain to me this also if we evolved then why aren't we still evovoling?

Tags
  Basic Accounting   Accounting Certificate   Accounting Degree   Accounting Standards   Accounting Principle   Accounting Terms   Accounting Theory   Accounting Training   Accounting Course   Accounting School   Accounting Education   Accounting Services
Related information
  • How is attachment theory used to account for children's social development?

    er.. it's kinda essential, but a bit hefty to describe. do some research!

    ...
  • Is the theory-theory the best account we have of mental-state terms?

    Thoery-theory's biggest problem is when one contemplates actions, which is a much more relevant endeavour than hoping to couch epistemology in terms of theory. For the best accounts of mental ...

  • Account for the theory of plate tectonics.?

    The earth's crust (land and water) basically sits on a sea of liquid molten rock or "mantle." The different plates are moving around on the surface of this. We tend to think of onl...

  • What refinements had to be made in Dalton's atomic theory to account for Gay-Lussac's results on the combining

    Dalton based his atomic theory on (what is now called) formula weight. Gay-Lussac carefully measured the volume of the gases. Although Dalton formulated the law of multiple proportions theory, he ...

  • Why is there still no unifying translation theory that accounts for general and specific choices?

    Because linguists are too occupied with spouting jargon instead of thinking? The two things that really help are a very good knowledge of both your languages and common sense.

    ...
  • Fellow christians, why do you not accept the theory of evolution and the big bang theory?

    To post #1 - What is a day to God?? He's the same God of other planets that take a lot longer to rotate on their axis... I find blind faith in a book, which in actaulity is a collection ...

  • Why does every crackpot with a conspiracy theory have a Yahoo Answers account?

    Because we can't help it. Yahoo just draws itself to us like a magnet. Anybody that believes in aliens from outer space live here. Anybody who believes that Mr. Bush is a good president res...

  • Why did the BCS theory of superconductivity fail to account for the high temperature type II superconductors?

    This is a standard question and to achieve high grades look it up in the books. The basic argument is along the bonding energy of BCS pairs and thermal noise energy

    ...
  •  

    Categories--Copyright/IP Policy--Contact Webmaster