When, a century after the first edition, was prepared a special commemorative edition of Darwin's Origin of Species, was invited to write the introduction W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control in Ottawa, Canada. In that introduction he wrote: "It is well known among biologists, there is a considerable difference of opinion not only on the causes of evolution, but also its actual mechanism. This divergence is due to the fact that the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not lead to any definite conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of non-specialists on the contrasts that exist in the field of evolution "in
Proponents of the theory of evolution consider it a fact. They believe that evolution is an "actual event", a "reality", a "truth" as the dictionary defines the word "fact." But is it?
2 For example, it is believed that the earth was flat. Now we know for sure that it roughly spherical shape. It was once thought that the earth was the center of the universe and the heavens revolved around it. We now know, beyond any doubt that the earth revolves in an orbit around the sun. This is also a fact. Many things that were once only discussed theories were later proven and time are established facts, reality, truth.
3 An examination of the evidence for evolution would not lead to such a certainty? Interestingly, since in 1859 was published The Origin of Species Darwin, various aspects of his theory were the subject of considerable contrasts between them leading evolutionary scientists. Today, this debate is more heated than ever. And it is enlightening see what they say about themselves supporters of evolution.
Evolution accused
4 Discover The journal has described the situation: "Evolution. . . not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but also is questioned by reputable scientists. A growing disagreement with the prevailing concept of Darwinism is found among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record ".1 Francis Hitching, evolutionist and author of" The Neck of the Giraffe (The neck of the giraffe), writes: "In proportion to all enjoyed consensus in the scientific world as a great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, dopo un secolo e un quarto, si dibatte fra sorprendenti difficoltà”.2
5 Al termine di un’importante conferenza che ha visto riuniti a Chicago (Illinois, USA) circa 150 specialisti nel campo dell’evoluzione, è stato detto: “[L’evoluzione] sta attraversando la sua più grande e più profonda rivoluzione da quasi 50 anni a questa parte. . . . Esattamente come sia avvenuta l’evoluzione è ora oggetto di un’accesa controversia fra i biologi. . . . Non si intravedeva nessun modo chiaro per comporre le controversie”.3
6 Il paleontologo Niles Eldredge, noto evoluzionista, ha detto: “Il dubbio insinuatosi nella fiduciosa e compiaciuta certezza che ha caratterizzato gli ultimi vent’anni della biologia evoluzionistica ha infiammato gli animi”. Egli parla della “mancanza di completo accordo in seno agli stessi schieramenti in lotta”, e aggiunge: “Oggi come oggi la situazione è davvero in subbuglio. . . . A volte pare vi siano tante variazioni su ciascun tema [evoluzionistico] quanti sono i singoli biologi”.4
7 Christopher Booker, che scrive per il Times di Londra e che personalmente è favorevole all’evoluzione, afferma: “Era una teoria attraente e meravigliosamente semplice. L’unico guaio, come almeno in parte si rendeva conto lo stesso Darwin, erano le sue numerosissime e colossali lacune”. About the Origin of Species Darwin, the writer observes: "Here we are at the height of irony, in the sense that a book became famous for explaining the origin of species in fact does not contain anything like that." - The italics are ours.
8 Booker also says: "A century after Darwin's death, we have not demonstrated the slightest idea, or even plausible, to have been in effect as of the evolution, and in recent years this has resulted in an extraordinary series of battles on the whole issue. . . . among evolutionists themselves is hardly open war, and each group [evolutionary] sectarian claim some new changes. " Then concludes by saying: "The how and why we do not have occurred, and probably will never have the faintest idea" .5
9 Hitching evolutionist agrees, and says: "On the theory of ' developments have opened hostilities. . . Entrenched positions, for and against, were radicalized in high places, and insults flew from side to side as mortar shells. " In his view this is an academic dispute of far-reaching, "potentially one of those moments when, suddenly, an idea rooted in science is overthrown by the weight of evidence to the contrary and replaced by a new theory ".6 And the British journal New Scientist notes that" a growing number of scientists, including a growing number of evolutionists, he says. . . that the Darwinian theory of evolution is not a scientific theory itself. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials ".7
The dilemma of the origins
10 About the question of how life originated, the astronomer Robert Jastrow writes:" To their great regret, these questions [of scientists ] not have accurate answers, because the chemicals have never been able to reproduce the experiments of nature on the creation of life from nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how this happened. " He adds: "Scientists have no evidence that life was not the result of an act of creation" .8
11 But the problem is not limited only the origin of life. Take for example, organs like the eye, ear, brain. They are all incredible complexity, far superior to the more sophisticated man-made device. A problem for evolution is that all the parts of these bodies must work together because you can see, hear or think. These organs would be useless until it had been completed all the individual parts. It is therefore natural to ask: Is the blind case - considered a key factor for the development - has put together all these parts at the right time to produce such elaborate mechanisms?
12 Darwin admitted that this was a problem, so he wrote: "To suppose that the eye. . . can be formed by [evolution], seems, I freely admit, utterly absurd ".9 It has since spent more than a century. The problem has been resolved, perhaps? No. Instead, what has been learned since the time of Darwin to the eye today indicates that the eye is even more complex di quanto pensasse lui. Per questo Jastrow dice riguardo all’occhio: “Si direbbe il frutto di un rigoroso progetto ingegneristico: nessun costruttore di telescopi avrebbe saputo fare di meglio”.10
13 Se questo vale per l’occhio, che dire allora del cervello umano? Dato che nemmeno il più semplice meccanismo si evolve per caso, come può ritenersi un fatto l’evoluzione del cervello, infinitamente più complesso? Jastrow conclude dicendo: “Se è difficile accettare che l’evoluzione dell’occhio umano sia prodotto del caso, lo è ancor più accettare che l’evoluzione dell’intelligenza umana sia il prodotto di guasti casuali verificatisi nelle cellule cerebrali of our ancestors ".11
The dilemma of fossil
14 million bones and other traces of ancient life forms have been unearthed by scientists, and are called fossils. If evolution were a fact, throughout this document should certainly find ample evidence of the existence of transitional forms between species. But the Bulletin of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago says: "The Darwinian theory [of evolution] has always been intimately linked to the fossil record, and probably the majority of people think that the fossils are a cornerstone of Darwinian interpretations of history of life. Unfortunately not exactly so. "
15 Why? The bulletin adds that Darwin "was embarrassed by the fossil record because it did not correspond to his expectations. . . geological documentation, then as now, does not reveal a clear chain indicating a gradual slow and progressive evolution. " In fact today, after more than a century the fossil record, "we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin's day," says Bulletin.12 Why? Why from the richest fossil record reveals that once some of the examples cited in support of evolution does not support it at all. 16 The inability
to find evidence of a gradual evolution in the fossil record annoys many evolutionists. In The evolution of evolution, Steven M. Stanley speaks of the 'general inability of the fossil record to show smooth transitions from an important group to another. " Stanley says: "The fossil record is not available, and never has been, in agreement [with a gradual evolution]" .13 Even Niles Eldredge admits: "The model that we were told to look over the past one hundred and twenty years there "14 More recent theories
17 This has led many scientists to formulate new theories of evolution. Science Digest, wrote: "Some scientists suggest evolutionary changes even more rapidly, and now take seriously ideas once common only in books of fiction" .15
18 For example, some scientists have concluded that life is not can be born naturally on earth. Suggest that instead have originated in space, and then was somehow transported here on earth. But this means only displace the problem of the origin of life, and in an even more hostile. They are well-known dangers that life in the hostile environment encountered in space. It is therefore plausible to consider that life arose spontaneously in some else in the universe and has withstood the extreme rigors of space and then come to earth and evolve into life forms we know today?
19 Since the fossil record does not reveal a gradual development of life from one form to another, some evolutionists assume that this was done intermittently, to jump, and not an ongoing process. The World Book Encyclopedia says: "According to many biologists new species can be produced by sudden and drastic changes in the genes"
.16 20 Some proponents of this theory speak of "punctuated equilibrium". The species, they say, they keep their "balance" (staying mostly unchanged), but occasionally there is a significant "leap" that evolves into something else. This is exactly the opposite of that theory for many decades has been accepted by almost all evolutionists. The gulf between the two theories was described in an article in the New York Times, entitled: "Against the theory of evolution quickly." The article pointed out that the new theory of 'punctuated equilibrium "had" aroused further opposition from supporters of the theory tradizionale.17
21 Whatever theory you support, should at least be some evidence that a form of life becomes in another. But among different life forms found in the fossil state, as well as among those now on earth, there was and continues to be a gap. 22 It is also symptomatic
what happened to the traditional concept of Darwinian "survival of the fittest." Darwin called it "natural selection", convinced that nature, "select" the organizations most likely to survive. He believed that these individuals "fit" to evolve slowly as they acquired new features that prove advantageous for them. But the facts show that the last one hundred twenty-five years, although the most suitable can actually survive, this does not explain the source. A lion may be more appropriate than another lion, but this does not explain how he became a lion. And all his descendants continue to be lions, not something else.
23 Writing in the journal Harper's, Tom Bethell said: "Darwin made a mistake serious enough to undermine the basis of his theory. And that mistake has only recently been recognized as such. . . . An organization may actually be 'more suitable' than another. . . This, of course, is not something that will serve to create the body. . . Clearly, I think, that such an idea something was very wrong. " Bethell added: "I think the conclusion is somewhat puzzling, I believe that Darwin's theory is about to collapse" .18
Fact or theory?
24 summarize some of the unsolved nodes of the theory of evolution, writes Francis Hitching, "In three crucial areas where it can be put to the test, [the modern theory of evolution] has not passed the exam: The fossil record reveals a pattern in evolutionary jumps and not a gradual change. Genes are a powerful stabilizing mechanism whose main function is to prevent the development of new forms. Random mutations and lens at the molecular level can not explain the organized and growing complexity of life. " - The italics are ours.
25 Hitching concludes by saying: "At least we have the right to question a theory that is the subject of so much uncertainty among its own supporters. To be the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism contains extraordinarily large areas of darkness. No answer to some of the most fundamental questions: how inanimate chemicals have become living matter, such as grammar rules are hidden behind the genetic code, how genes give shape to the living. " Hitching to the modern theory of evolution is "so inadequate as to deserve to be considered subject of faith" .19
26 Nevertheless, many proponents of evolution believe in fact that you have sufficient grounds to believe that evolution is a fact. They explain that their differences relate only to details. But if any other theory continues to struggle among such enormous difficulties, and to be the object of such obvious contradictions between his own supporters, would be called a fact so easily? Keep repeating that something is a fact not enough to make it so. As written by biologist John R. Durant in The Guardian of London, "Many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic. . . Repeatedly the question of the origin of species was presented as if it had been finally resolved. Nothing could be further from the truth. . . . But the tendency persists to be dogmatic, and does not make a useful service to the cause of science ".20
27 On the other hand, what about the creation as an explanation of how life originated on Earth? Provides a key to most of the available evidence of valid assertions that often underpin the evolution? The best known story of creation, the Book of Genesis, sheds light on the origin of the earth in a credible and living?
"The computer scientists try in vain to imitate the visual ability man "
In an article titled as the New York Times reports:" Experts who follow one of the most daring dreams of - to build machines that think - have stumbled into one of the most basic steps apparently : have not been able to reproduce the visual faculty.
"After two decades of research have yet to teach machines how to perform a seemingly simple act, to recognize and distinguish between the most common subjects.
"Instead, they have come to regard with deep respect the sophisticated human visual mechanism. . . . The human retina is the envy of computer experts. Its 100 million rods and cones and its layers of neurons are running at least 10 billion operations per second. "
0 comments:
Post a Comment