Evolution’s Top 10 List

Evolution Top 10 

The Top 10 Myths about Evolution.

Myth 10: Computer Simulations Prove Evolution
Myth 9: Homologous (Similar) Structures Show Past Evolution
Myth 8: There Are Clear Transitional Fossils
Myth 7: Ape-Human DNA Similarities
Myth 6: Apemen and Artistic License
Myth 5: Bad Design
Myth 4: Vestigial Organs
Myth 3: Antibiotic Resistance
Myth 2: Natural Selection Is Evolution in Action
Myth 1: All Scientists Agree

8 Responses to Evolution’s Top 10 List

  1. Michael says:

    Now that’s a great list, I read the computer simulation article and I agree with it. It’s very limited in scope based on bias presumptions. Not true science at all. I believe evolutionist rely on it so much because they don’t have the observational data.

  2. jerryk says:

    Hi Dave and thanks for visiting. The Tiktaalik was a fish and the premature declaration of it as a ‘missing link’ was somewhat of an embarrassment to the scientific community.

    Think about it, billions of years of (supposed) evolution and more than 150 years of looking for evidence of a ‘missing link’ and this is the best example anyone can come up with? It’s more probable that the similarities in the design of life and between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor.

  3. jerryk says:

    Hi Michael and thanks for visiting and for taking the time to post a comment.

  4. I fail to see how Tiktaalik is an embarrassment to the scientific community. Yes, it is an example of a transitional species, a very rare one.

    I did have a long answer, I scrapped it in favour of asking you to flesh out those ‘myths’; for instance, what exactly is your point when you say ‘antibiotic resistance’ is a myth?

  5. jerryk says:

    Hi Literary (may I call you Literary or do you prefer Mr. Dead Kittens?) and thanks for visiting and taking the time to post a comment. I’ve visited your blog a few times and, although I obviously disagree with most of your articles, I have found (most of) them to be intelligently written and thorough.

    You may have misunderstood my statement, the premature announcement of it as a missing link was by the popular media, not the scientific community. Be that as it may, remove evolutionary conjecture about the Tiktaalik and what is left is a fish; re-surround it with evolutionary conjecture and it’s still only a fish. Other than through Darwinian assumptions, the Tiktaalik has not been linked as an ancestor to land vertebrates and, as I understand it, even evolutionary scientists have not yet reached agreement about how or where it fits.

    If evolution has been occurring for billions of years wouldn’t you agree that there should also be undeniable evidence by now of transitions within the sedimentary rock records, rather than it having “a very rare” (your words) occurrence? I think that an objective (is that a word which describes either of our view points — objective?) evaluation of the evidence really points to the more likely conclusion that the similarities in design prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor.

  6. It’s not Mr, not that it matters (was it simplicity or do I sound like a guy?). And yes, obviously you disagree 😀 And thankyou, some of them are indeed mindless rants, but then waht else is a blog for but to express yourself!

    Given the number of living creatures that have existed over the course of history, don’t you think fossilisation is a rare occurence? Billions more individuals must have existed than have ever been fossilised. I heard the analogy once that if every organism fossilised, the result would be a ten mile deep layer over the entire earth (okay, my quote isn’t accurate, but you catch my drift)

    Do you mean objective on evolution or on gods?

    No, I don’t think the similarities indicate a common creator, but then a supernatural creator , but then similarities sometimes do not point to a common ancestor either. I draw your attention to the concept of convergent evolution.

    I often find, and I mean no personal offence, that objection to evolution is usually they really are. The arguments I have encountered against them usually display abased on ignorance of evolution and biology, considering both to be far simpler than kind of naivity that lacks in-depth understanding of the subject. There is, of course, more evidence behind evolution than simply fossils, molecular evidence of late (well more like over the past twenty years) has become very prominent.

    Don’t forget Tiktaalik is fairly new on the scene; I’m not sure about the status of agreement (currently), but if a consensus had been reached already, that would have been a quick decision.

    For evolution in general, a good basic biology textbook is a good place to start, understanding basic concepts in biology is usually a pre-requisute to understanding texts purely deovted to evolution.

  7. jerryk says:

    Hi Literary,

    oh buoy! If you, by any chance, had been looking Texasward Saturday morning, that red glowing atmospheric anomaly you saw was caused by my blushing because of my mis-categorizing you with the title of ‘Mr.’. Please accept my sincere apologies. And yes, as you pointed out (with a great deal of kindness I may add), ‘simplicity’ is an apt description (though perhaps understated) of that which afflicts the male of our species, of I which I am the chief sinner and recognized world champion of the foot-in-mouth award (well, me and Joe Biden, but that is a different story).

    Fossilization may indeed be a rare occurrence when thought of in terms of all life forms multiplied by the population of those forms of life over time. That however can not account for the lack of evidence in the fossil record of transitional forms. Given this, the more recent drive to find evidence for macro evolution in the area of molecular studies seems logical for those attached to evolutionary philosophy; it also seems a bit … desperate.

    I don’t take any offense to the notion that people who object to evolution usually do so due to lack of understanding, education, or because of ignorance. I’ve heard all that before and your choice of words in this regard is a good deal kinder than most I have heard, thank you. It’s not that hard of a concept to grasp however: when we see a building, we know that there was a builder; when we see a painting we know that there was a painter; and when we see creation, we know that there was a Creator. The proof of the existence of the Creator, God, is everywhere and all around us, all we need are eyes that see and a brain that works to prove it. One need look no further for a sufficient explanation of life.

    Of course, people have options about what they can do with that knowledge – they can accept it, ignore it, or reject it. The last two options seem rather dangerous especially considering the fact that we will all face that Creator one day. This is how the Scripture puts it (Romans 1:18-20): “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”

    Please carefully consider the truth of this, the alternative is unimaginable.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: