Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Eveshi

Is evolution a hoax?

135 posts in this topic

I have been teaching biology for over 10 years but in the last few years I have started to have doubts, what if evolution is some sort of hoax? I mean we have actually never observed mega speciation. It's possible that God might of created species. I have Michael Cremo's books and he talks about a knowledge filtration and evolutionists covering up evidence that does not fit their belief system. Any thoughts?

Mike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, if evolutionists cover up evidence then they are doing a pretty bad job of it.

What is certain is that creationists, such as Mr. Cremo, are trying hard to ignore the facts, and when that is insufficient, "add" a few new ones aimed at reinforcing their religious fervor.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. It was convincing when Darwin first wrote about it and it was confirmed by genetics. To doubt it is to doubt that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

And if I'm wrong about it and it was all the product of divine creation then it was created in such a way to look like evolution.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been teaching biology for over 10 years but in the last few years I have started to have doubts, what if evolution is some sort of hoax? I mean we have actually never observed mega speciation. It's possible that God might of created species. I have Michael Cremo's books and he talks about a knowledge filtration and evolutionists covering up evidence that does not fit their belief system. Any thoughts?

I don't know why we would expect to observe mega-speciation (macroevolution), that doesn't happen over the course of just a few generations. Also the micro- vs macro-evolution distinction is a favorite one for creationists to harp on, but I've never heard one mention any details on what scientifically is preventing micro-evolution over thousands of generations resulting in different species. This always seemed like one of the few areas of research that anti-evolutionists could look into, yet to my knowledge they have not. Some creationists don't dispute that evolution is creating the incredible variety of dogs for instance, but for some reason they seem to believe that all the radical physical changes that can occur within a species can never result in, over time, the inability of these descendants to reproduce with each other.

As far as the accusation of 'evolutionists' covering up evidence, for this to really be believable we would need evidence of a massive scam occurring involving tens-hundreds of thousands of biologists. From multiple countries no less. No one has said it is not possible for God or aliens or leprechauns to create species, there just isn't any evidence of it occurring.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. It was convincing when Darwin first wrote about it and it was confirmed by genetics. To doubt it is to doubt that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

MM he thought life was spontanously popping up all over the place. Like rats litteraly came from a garbage filled floor.

And if I'm wrong about it and it was all the product of divine creation then it was created in such a way to look like evolution.

Some parts of evolution are fact. Adaptation being one. But there is no evidence of species turning into other species. In fact the fossil record clearly shows at one level, no life, then a explosion of fully formed creatures on the next level. What did they say about that to make a square fit into a circle? What was it called?

Man has never created anything more complex as even the most simple cells in existance today. Personaly I think everything around us screams creation. Good luck in your studies. I hope you find what you are looking for.

Oh and welcome to the boards.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been teaching biology for over 10 years but in the last few years I have started to have doubts, what if evolution is some sort of hoax? I mean we have actually never observed mega speciation. It's possible that God might of created species. I have Michael Cremo's books and he talks about a knowledge filtration and evolutionists covering up evidence that does not fit their belief system. Any thoughts?

Mike.

Starting off simple, we have the fossil record, but forget that. Know anything about dog breeding? Or Mendels famous pea breeding experiments? Ever observed frog-spawn to see a tadpole develop a tail, then lose it again when it was a frog? Literally another creature!! Or a bug in chrysalis form in the ground/or water..that develops wings and becomes a butterfly?

Anyway, as I said, starting off simple. Now a good question. Why does man have fingernails? Canine teeth? A coccyx? A nervous system that provides powerful adrenaline for fight or flight? Body-hair?

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why we would expect to observe mega-speciation (macroevolution), that doesn't happen over the course of just a few generations. Also the micro- vs macro-evolution distinction is a favorite one for creationists to harp on, but I've never heard one mention any details on what scientifically is preventing micro-evolution over thousands of generations resulting in different species. This always seemed like one of the few areas of research that anti-evolutionists could look into, yet to my knowledge they have not. Some creationists don't dispute that evolution is creating the incredible variety of dogs for instance, but for some reason they seem to believe that all the radical physical changes that can occur within a species can never result in, over time, the inability of these descendants to reproduce with each other.

As far as the accusation of 'evolutionists' covering up evidence, for this to really be believable we would need evidence of a massive scam occurring involving tens-hundreds of thousands of biologists. From multiple countries no less. No one has said it is not possible for God or aliens or leprechauns to create species, there just isn't any evidence of it occurring.

Hey Liquid.

Im no expert on this subject. Not by a long shot. Nor am I even gonna argue about it, cause these conversations tend to get ugly fast. But we have seen billions of generation of bacteria, that have never evolved into anything but what they originaly were. We have seen millions of generations of fruit flies, and they remain fruit flies.

For me, and of course I admit im bias, it just seems to me that something must exist eternaly in order for anything to have ever existed. Everything known to man is in a state of decay. Meaning it all had a begining. Nothing we see is eternal. So if you go back far enough, from what we know today, there must have been a time of complete nothingness. Yet we know that 0+0=0 everytime. Without fail.

Anyhow thats just my opinion. Looking forward to reading what other folks have to say.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But there is no evidence of species turning into other species.

Actually there is (leaving aside that species don't literally 'turn into' other species):

http://talkorigins.o...c/CB/CB910.html

In fact the fossil record clearly shows at one level, no life, then a explosion of fully formed creatures on the next level.

I think you're referring to the Cambrian explosion; it is not true that before it there was 'no life', we have fossil evidence before that time of lifeforms.

Just read your reply, and just a couple comments. First, do you think that the fact that wolves, foxes, and coyotes closely resemble each other but are different species is just a coincidence? Did the creator start running out of ideas? More importantly, why can't evolution simply be the process that the creator used, if you are inclined to believe in a creator? If you believe what cosmology tells us, then the earth itself didn't exist for billions of years after the universe was created. God/The Creator then seems to have used to laws of physics to eventually create the earth; if that's the case, then what's the issue with him using another natural process to create life and diversity?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think evolution is a hoax, because we have an enourmous amount of evidence for it.

What i would like to know is:

- What changed your mind ?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think evolution is a hoax, because we have an enourmous amount of evidence for it.

What i would like to know is:

- What changed your mind ?

Yea Mike. Dont leave us hanging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A teacher, who doesn't know it's might have and not might of? That makes me wonder about the "hoax" in the OP.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple more things to ponder. Whales and dolphins. Need to breath. They look like fish, they swim like fish, they eat like fish. But theyre mammals, just like us

Now about creating new life. Its been done, sort of anyway, synthetically

"As for creating life from scratch, a big step was taken last May when famed geneticist J. Craig Venter and his team unveiled the first synthetic organism. The scientists crafted an entire genome from chemicals in the lab. They then implanted this synthetic genome in an empty cell, after which the cell booted up and began cranking out copies of its modified self per the implanted genetic instructions.

This artificial life form, dubbed Synthia, required the leftover cellular machinery made by a natural, preexisting organism, so science hasn't reached back to square one yet. "Venter did not create life," says Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, who was involved in the research. "But he showed that an artificial genome can power a bacterium, thereby taking a crucial step toward the demonstration that synthesizing life is possible."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/sciences-greatest-unsolved-mysteries-creating-life#slide-4

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A teacher, who doesn't know it's might have and not might of? That makes me wonder about the "hoax" in the OP.

or someone preaching

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually there is (leaving aside that species don't literally 'turn into' other species):

http://talkorigins.o...c/CB/CB910.html

I think you're referring to the Cambrian explosion; it is not true that before it there was 'no life', we have fossil evidence before that time of lifeforms.

Yes thats it. Thanks. It just seems to me that the Cambrian explosion defies alot of what we are told about evolution. If life forms could evolve that quickly, then why do evolutionists demand millions or billions of years for enough change to where a species can no longer mate with what was the same species. If that makes any sence.

Just read your reply, and just a couple comments. First, do you think that the fact that wolves, foxes, and coyotes closely resemble each other but are different species is just a coincidence? Did the creator start running out of ideas? More importantly, why can't evolution simply be the process that the creator used, if you are inclined to believe in a creator? If you believe what cosmology tells us, then the earth itself didn't exist for billions of years after the universe was created. God/The Creator then seems to have used to laws of physics to eventually create the earth; if that's the case, then what's the issue with him using another natural process to create life and diversity?

I wish I could give you what would at least sound like a educated answer to your questions. But I cant claim to know the will of God, in how or why he did things the way he did. Is it possible He used evolution? I guess it is. He did say he made man from the dust of the earth. Which if you think about it, is a pretty profound statement for a 4000 year old document. I think alot of the conflicts come from the biblical discriptions of creation. Cause he didnt say the same thing for any other life form. Those according to scripture were just spoken into existance. So the problem from there (as some folks see it) is now to believe in evolution, you have to dismiss the creation story. There was a time when I myself would stand on the scriptures and defend what I believed to be its honor. But the older I get, the more I understand how very little I actualy understand. I ask God at least once a day to forgive my ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or someone preaching

Exactly.

Edited by FLOMBIE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been teaching biology for over 10 years but in the last few years I have started to have doubts, what if evolution is some sort of hoax? I mean we have actually never observed mega speciation. It's possible that God might of created species. I have Michael Cremo's books and he talks about a knowledge filtration and evolutionists covering up evidence that does not fit their belief system. Any thoughts?

Mike.

When examining the differences between micro- and macro-evolution, we have to not look at the process - which is the same in both - but at the drivers. Macro-evolution happens when a derivative population becomes adapted to a totally new environment to it's 'parent' population. Generally, this is early in the evolution of life on a planet when there are still new environments for organisms to evolve into.

So, we should not expect to see macroevolution happen, because life has already colonised all suitable environments on this planet. There are no new environments left for life to evolve into.

However, as I said, the processes which describe evolution are the same in both the micro- and macro- 'versions'. Therefore we can conclude with some certainty that this macro-evolution did take place and led to the distribution of very different organisms in the different environments on our planet.

Edited by Leonardo
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes thats it. Thanks. It just seems to me that the Cambrian explosion defies alot of what we are told about evolution. If life forms could evolve that quickly, then why do evolutionists demand millions or billions of years for enough change to where a species can no longer mate with what was the same species. If that makes any sence.

Well, I don't think the Cambrian explosion does really defy evolution, I don't know that. 'Explosion' is a relative term also; they didn't instantaneously appear, it was 70-80 million years long I believe, which it does appear is still pretty fast for the amount of evolution that took place. At some point I think we have to temper what you and I can say about it, I wouldn't phrase it as 'Cambrian explosion defies what we are told about evolution'. Biology is a science, it takes many years of study, we shouldn't be relying on our understanding and saying that something maybe defied evolution, you and I are for the most part ignorant of the details of that science.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes thats it. Thanks. It just seems to me that the Cambrian explosion defies alot of what we are told about evolution. If life forms could evolve that quickly, then why do evolutionists demand millions or billions of years for enough change to where a species can no longer mate with what was the same species. If that makes any sence.

How fast do you think the Cambrian explosion was? Evolutionary biologists don't demand "millions or billions of years". That's just what it is. Sure, Darwin understood that for evolution to be true, then the Earth had to be much older than what was thought at the time.

The Cambrian explosion took place over tens of millions of years (a very slow explosion - although pretty brief in geological terms). Considering mammals have evolved from small burrowing creatures to what we have today (and many more in between) in a little more than 60 million, maybe we should call this the Mammalian explosion.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that like the caterpillar that changes into a butterfly still today, Evolution would be very evident. The fact that it is based on fossil remains, and in Darwin's case a missing link, for me makes me want to consider other ideas.

Edited by Forever Cursed
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MM he thought life was spontanously popping up all over the place. Like rats litteraly came from a garbage filled floor.

Some parts of evolution are fact. Adaptation being one. But there is no evidence of species turning into other species. In fact the fossil record clearly shows at one level, no life, then a explosion of fully formed creatures on the next level. What did they say about that to make a square fit into a circle? What was it called?

Man has never created anything more complex as even the most simple cells in existance today. Personaly I think everything around us screams creation. Good luck in your studies. I hope you find what you are looking for.

Oh and welcome to the boards.

Sorry, but you have a lot of mistakes there.

The idea of spontaneous generation had long ago been replaced by other ideas before Darwin's time. When Darwin was doing his research people were into something called natural theology. The idea was that god was creating new species that were designed for their environment.

There is no point in time in which life suddenly appears on Earth as you suggest. You appear to be repeating a misrepresentation of the so-called Cambrian explosion. First off, there has been life on Earth for 3 billion years or more. Around 800Ma the fractal animals appeared. Later there were the Edicarian animals. The Cambrian explosion was a 80My time period starting some 540Ma when modern life forms with hard features appear in the fossil record.

What Darwin and Wallace observed was that the idea of natural philosophy did not work. There were many animals that didnot apepar well suited to their environment. There were frogs that could glide on their finger pads, but not well. If natural theology were correct why make the frog such a poor flier? Why would there be tree kangaroos that were not good climbers? Darwin and Wallace both realized that there were connections between species. The idea of natural selection answered the issue.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that like the caterpillar that changes into a butterfly still today, Evolution would be very evident. The fact that it is based on fossil remains, and in Darwin's case a missing link, for me makes me want to consider other ideas.

The missing link was a 50's term, we have moved on since then...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A teacher, who doesn't know it's might have and not might of? That makes me wonder about the "hoax" in the OP.

now now flombie, he's not an english teacher

:lol:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How fast do you think the Cambrian explosion was? Evolutionary biologists don't demand "millions or billions of years". That's just what it is. Sure, Darwin understood that for evolution to be true, then the Earth had to be much older than what was thought at the time.

The Cambrian explosion took place over tens of millions of years (a very slow explosion - although pretty brief in geological terms). Considering mammals have evolved from small burrowing creatures to what we have today (and many more in between) in a little more than 60 million, maybe we should call this the Mammalian explosion.

Well personaly, and I hope this answers Liquid as well, I dont necessarily believe in the Cambrian explosion at all. I also have doubts of what the earth layers tell us as far as a timeline is concerned. I personaly think a great flood can much more clearly explain what we see in the fossil record. I think that helps explain the existance of such a vast array of fossils to begin with. Typicaly animals we see today dont fossilize before nature removes their entire existance. A fossil is made by the animal being buried, quickly, and compressed by the dirt that covers it.

Now I know what I just said is very controversial, and even might sound completly ignorant to some here. Its just after watching folks far more intelligent then myself, on both sides of the coin, this just made more sence to me. But like I admitted before, Im certainly Bias. I do have a solid faith, due to a recent experiance, that one day these things will be known to me. And I certainly admit I may find I was very wrong.

Where did the OP go? Id like to dig into what has brought doubt in the evolution theory for him. Hope we didnt get one hit wondered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MM he thought life was spontanously popping up all over the place. Like rats litteraly came from a garbage filled floor.

I can tell you that that is not true at all. What you're referring to is the original theory of Abiogenesis, also known as Spontaneous Generation, where yes rats and mice came from filth, and crocodiles from logs in river beds. It was debunked before Darwin even went on his famous voyage, and he certainly never argued for it in the Origin of Species.

He devotes the entire first chapter to explaining what animal breeders observe every day, selecting the traits that they want to emphasise in their animals and breeding them together. Animal husbandry and in particular pigeon and dog breeding was very popular in Victorian England so he began with something many of his readers could understand - Intelligent selection. From there he argues that survival and reproduction work as natural selectors. It's so simple anyone can understand it. But please don't misrepresent the work, it's very consistent and convincing argument and one of the greatest scientific works ever produced, even though some of it's ideas have been overturned. That's the good thing about science, it grows as our knowledge expands.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to the terms missing link/transitional fossil: Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.