frrostedman wrote:I would like to formally request that this thread be moved to the spirituality forum where the scientific-minded skeptics and Atheists can have their turn at shooting down the points made by this article.
It's really a poor, overly-simplified advertising piece for what I guess is Hinduism?
There is really nothing new here, just a watered down version of the common arguments against evolution, such as:
1) No intermediate fossils (missing links)
2) Inability of organisms to evolve due to partially evolved parts not being able to function
3) Mutations being harmful and incapable of positive change
4) There are genetic limits to change within species
5) Creationism is just a different interpretation of the evidence
There are a few more points, but this is the gist of it. As I say, a very poor "hit piece" which will appeal to those who want a very simple answer such as "God did it" without having to take the time and effort needed to actually understand the theory of evolution, which is a lot of work!
To respond to the points in a basic fashion matching the amount of effort put into the article's rehashing of already refuted arguments:
1) Not true. Here is a list of intermediate fossils:
2) This just isn't true. A partially formed eye, for instance, one that lets a little light in, is superior to to nothing at all, and we see such eyes in certain fish. There is evidence of partially formed wings, and again, it's not hard to imagine that it might be useful, and at the worst not bad enough to cause the organism to die.
3) Most mutations are neutral, not harmful, so the author is just wrong there. It only takes one positive mutation to create a new trait that may get passed on, it doesn't matter if a million others resulted in death or harm.
4) No there aren't. The limits shown were limits found when breeding between the same species. This is not how evolution works, as evolution requires mutations, and there is no limit upon those mutations.
5) Sure, but you could invent anything and call it an "interpretation", that doesn't make it a good one.
These discussions are always a bit pointless, but I thought I'd respond before this hits the religion forum.