The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
EDITED
Every theory that the scientists of the world had put forward during the 15th to 19th century had witnessed a whirl wind of opposition from those who were conservatives. Most of these theories were proved right quite a long time before the 20th century. But, the theory of evolution was questioned by conservatives even in the 20th century.
Please note that we are talking here about the conservatives; those who want to say that evolution is impossible, or those who say that life originated in 4004 B.C.
One such person was REV. Father William A. Williams, D.D. (I’m quite unsure what does the D.D. here stands for). He had put forward 50 arguments against evolution of man in a systematic manner in his book "The evolution of man scientifically disproved in 50 arguments". (Yes, he accepts plants and animals might have evolved, but man did not)
I have started this thread for two reasons: -
A record attempt for the world's longest thread dealing with arguments (this one is not a much serious reason), and more importantly for counter-attacking some wild arguments as well as the savage use of scientific principles by the author and to share them with people on ukchatforums.com
Now, first off I am posting the summary of the introduction of this book. Please note that this book is now public domain, and no copyright law is being infringed by discussing or summarizing this book on ukchatforums. You can check out the details on www.gutenberg.org
The summary of this introduction can be used to prove the author wrong in his own tracks. After this, I would regularly post his summarized arguments and the contradictions that I find to them, as and when I get time. Do remember that the contradictions that I post here are my own and not borrowed. The things that I'll be using would be common logic and some basic principles, so that every body can argue and understand it. Also note that we are not proving the theory of evolution (most of it is universally accepted), but disproving the contents of Father’s book.
So here we commence-----
Summary of the introduction of Evo. Of Man disproved
(Here "we" means the readers of Father’s book. Treat the text as if you were reading Father Williams' book; and not his summary by me)
This book is designed,
(1) As an up-to-date text book, and a companion to all other text books on evolution; and
(2) As an antidote to books in libraries teaching evolution, infidelity and atheism; and
(3) As an aid to all students, parents, teachers, ministers, lawyers, doctors, and all other lovers of the truth.
Let it be understood, at the outset, that every proved theory of science is to be accepted. Only the most intense prejudice and the maddest folly would lead any one to reject the proved conclusions of science. Every theory to which mathematics can be applied will be proved or disproved by this acid test. Gravitation is proved a true theory by numerous calculations, some of them the most abstruse. The Copernican theory is proved true and the Ptolemaic theory false, by mathematical calculations. The evolution theory, especially as applied to man, likewise is disproved by mathematics. True theories, such as the gravitation and Copernican theories, harmonize with each other as every branch of mathematics harmonizes with every other.
One theory of evolution is held by many. It is called polyphyletic evolution, which means that God created numerous stocks, or beginnings of both plant and animal life, which were subject to change and growth, deterioration and development, according to his plan and purpose. So much of evolution in this sense as can be proved, is in harmony with the Bible account of the creation of plants, animals and man. The false theory of evolution is called the monophyletic, which teaches that all species of plants and animals including man, developed from one cell or germ which came by creation or spontaneous generation
Any scientific theory or hypothesis must be proved first possible, then probable, then certain. To be a possible theory, it must be reconcilable with many facts; to be a probable theory, it must be reconcilable with many more; to be a certain and proven theory, it must be reconcilable with all the facts. Every true theory passes through these three stages,--possibility, probability, and certainty.
We really have a right to demand the proof of a theory, and to refuse consent until proved. Even if it should ever be proved that all plant and animal life came by evolution from one primordial germ, it would not follow that either the body or the soul (note the usage of abstract term “Soul” in a scientific discussion” – entered by The Winster) of man came by evolution.
All the arguments against evolution in general are valid against the evolution of man. There are many other arguments, that prove the evolution of man impossible, even if the evolution of plants and animals can be proved possible.
Even if every argument in this book were invalid, save one, that one valid argument would overthrow evolution, since every true theory must be reconcilable with all the facts (Note how Father is reacting to the authenticity of his own facts. Guilty conscience – Added by The Winster). One irreconcilable fact is sufficient to overthrow evolution.
The evolution of man is not only a guess, but a very wild one; and it is totally unsupported by any convincing (!) arguments. It can be mathematically demonstrated to be an impossible theory. Every proof of the unity of the human race in the days of Adam or Noah shatters the theory of the evolution of man. If evolution were true, there would have been many billion times as many human beings as now exist, a great multitude of invented languages with little or no similarity, a vast number of invented religions with little, if anything, in common.
End of the summary
The first argument concerns the human population of earth, where the author has quite childishly used indexes (powers) of 2 to prove that the current population is insufficient if man existed since one million years.
I'll post two things: -
(1)a summary of whatever Rev. Father Williams has to say in his first argument
(2)and a logical proof (by me) that it is not a valid argument
in the next two or three days in this very thread.
I hope you would like this topic, and not make fun of it. After all we are in the "Life and all things serious" forum.
P.S. - Please bear with me the repetition of the word argument too often in this thread. If possible do post a good synonym to it with your replies, if any. Keep the synonym in P.S. Also, please don't start discussing the last 3 sentences in this thread. After all, the topic is evolution!
Every theory that the scientists of the world had put forward during the 15th to 19th century had witnessed a whirl wind of opposition from those who were conservatives. Most of these theories were proved right quite a long time before the 20th century. But, the theory of evolution was questioned by conservatives even in the 20th century.
Please note that we are talking here about the conservatives; those who want to say that evolution is impossible, or those who say that life originated in 4004 B.C.
One such person was REV. Father William A. Williams, D.D. (I’m quite unsure what does the D.D. here stands for). He had put forward 50 arguments against evolution of man in a systematic manner in his book "The evolution of man scientifically disproved in 50 arguments". (Yes, he accepts plants and animals might have evolved, but man did not)
I have started this thread for two reasons: -
A record attempt for the world's longest thread dealing with arguments (this one is not a much serious reason), and more importantly for counter-attacking some wild arguments as well as the savage use of scientific principles by the author and to share them with people on ukchatforums.com
Now, first off I am posting the summary of the introduction of this book. Please note that this book is now public domain, and no copyright law is being infringed by discussing or summarizing this book on ukchatforums. You can check out the details on www.gutenberg.org
The summary of this introduction can be used to prove the author wrong in his own tracks. After this, I would regularly post his summarized arguments and the contradictions that I find to them, as and when I get time. Do remember that the contradictions that I post here are my own and not borrowed. The things that I'll be using would be common logic and some basic principles, so that every body can argue and understand it. Also note that we are not proving the theory of evolution (most of it is universally accepted), but disproving the contents of Father’s book.
So here we commence-----
Summary of the introduction of Evo. Of Man disproved
(Here "we" means the readers of Father’s book. Treat the text as if you were reading Father Williams' book; and not his summary by me)
This book is designed,
(1) As an up-to-date text book, and a companion to all other text books on evolution; and
(2) As an antidote to books in libraries teaching evolution, infidelity and atheism; and
(3) As an aid to all students, parents, teachers, ministers, lawyers, doctors, and all other lovers of the truth.
Let it be understood, at the outset, that every proved theory of science is to be accepted. Only the most intense prejudice and the maddest folly would lead any one to reject the proved conclusions of science. Every theory to which mathematics can be applied will be proved or disproved by this acid test. Gravitation is proved a true theory by numerous calculations, some of them the most abstruse. The Copernican theory is proved true and the Ptolemaic theory false, by mathematical calculations. The evolution theory, especially as applied to man, likewise is disproved by mathematics. True theories, such as the gravitation and Copernican theories, harmonize with each other as every branch of mathematics harmonizes with every other.
One theory of evolution is held by many. It is called polyphyletic evolution, which means that God created numerous stocks, or beginnings of both plant and animal life, which were subject to change and growth, deterioration and development, according to his plan and purpose. So much of evolution in this sense as can be proved, is in harmony with the Bible account of the creation of plants, animals and man. The false theory of evolution is called the monophyletic, which teaches that all species of plants and animals including man, developed from one cell or germ which came by creation or spontaneous generation
Any scientific theory or hypothesis must be proved first possible, then probable, then certain. To be a possible theory, it must be reconcilable with many facts; to be a probable theory, it must be reconcilable with many more; to be a certain and proven theory, it must be reconcilable with all the facts. Every true theory passes through these three stages,--possibility, probability, and certainty.
We really have a right to demand the proof of a theory, and to refuse consent until proved. Even if it should ever be proved that all plant and animal life came by evolution from one primordial germ, it would not follow that either the body or the soul (note the usage of abstract term “Soul” in a scientific discussion” – entered by The Winster) of man came by evolution.
All the arguments against evolution in general are valid against the evolution of man. There are many other arguments, that prove the evolution of man impossible, even if the evolution of plants and animals can be proved possible.
Even if every argument in this book were invalid, save one, that one valid argument would overthrow evolution, since every true theory must be reconcilable with all the facts (Note how Father is reacting to the authenticity of his own facts. Guilty conscience – Added by The Winster). One irreconcilable fact is sufficient to overthrow evolution.
The evolution of man is not only a guess, but a very wild one; and it is totally unsupported by any convincing (!) arguments. It can be mathematically demonstrated to be an impossible theory. Every proof of the unity of the human race in the days of Adam or Noah shatters the theory of the evolution of man. If evolution were true, there would have been many billion times as many human beings as now exist, a great multitude of invented languages with little or no similarity, a vast number of invented religions with little, if anything, in common.
End of the summary
The first argument concerns the human population of earth, where the author has quite childishly used indexes (powers) of 2 to prove that the current population is insufficient if man existed since one million years.
I'll post two things: -
(1)a summary of whatever Rev. Father Williams has to say in his first argument
(2)and a logical proof (by me) that it is not a valid argument
in the next two or three days in this very thread.
I hope you would like this topic, and not make fun of it. After all we are in the "Life and all things serious" forum.
P.S. - Please bear with me the repetition of the word argument too often in this thread. If possible do post a good synonym to it with your replies, if any. Keep the synonym in P.S. Also, please don't start discussing the last 3 sentences in this thread. After all, the topic is evolution!
Page:
Everything is limited by our ability to observe it. That's what makes me think that parts of the Bible are just simplified versions of the truth. Things like how God moulds babies in the womb, when we know that the process is entirely self contained. If the Bible said "and the zygote divides into a ball of cells, which differentiate due to the genes in their DNA, which is a combination of the DNA from the mother and the father", no one would have ever understood it.
gerrid wrote:
> Honestly, getting a sun tan IS like breaking your leg in these terms,
> as there's no gene that controls it like that. There are genes that
> say "broken bone = produce bone healing hormone", and those
> get passed on to your offspring, but the broken bone, or your suntan,
> or the long hair that you have because you haven't cut it in a year,
> or the length of your fingernails etc...
Yeah, I get what you're saying.
These are all temporary things.
I was just thinking that permanent tanning could cause the body to fiddle the DNA. Like you said, on "current evidence" it's impossible (see what I did there! ;-P) but maybe no one's tried to observe it on the right timescale (I mean, comparing a kids DNA from when they're born to when they end), and the change from a single generation is probably miniscule in that it would take 5-10 generations for a noticable difference (timescale again).
Here is your stumbling point - this just doesn't happen. You can't modify your genes in this way. To do so would mean changing many many lines of code in the DNA, and even one mistake would probably kill you. No organism can ever change its own DNA by will, there's just no mechanism for it to occur.
So yeah, here my theory kind of clashed with modern science.
But I'll still say that there COULD be a way our body changes DNA, in a controlled way, or perhaps "edit" the DNA it passes to it's offspring and that we just haven't discovered it.
But yeah, by current knowledge, is does look like you're right. :-)
> Honestly, getting a sun tan IS like breaking your leg in these terms,
> as there's no gene that controls it like that. There are genes that
> say "broken bone = produce bone healing hormone", and those
> get passed on to your offspring, but the broken bone, or your suntan,
> or the long hair that you have because you haven't cut it in a year,
> or the length of your fingernails etc...
Yeah, I get what you're saying.
These are all temporary things.
I was just thinking that permanent tanning could cause the body to fiddle the DNA. Like you said, on "current evidence" it's impossible (see what I did there! ;-P) but maybe no one's tried to observe it on the right timescale (I mean, comparing a kids DNA from when they're born to when they end), and the change from a single generation is probably miniscule in that it would take 5-10 generations for a noticable difference (timescale again).
Here is your stumbling point - this just doesn't happen. You can't modify your genes in this way. To do so would mean changing many many lines of code in the DNA, and even one mistake would probably kill you. No organism can ever change its own DNA by will, there's just no mechanism for it to occur.
So yeah, here my theory kind of clashed with modern science.
But I'll still say that there COULD be a way our body changes DNA, in a controlled way, or perhaps "edit" the DNA it passes to it's offspring and that we just haven't discovered it.
But yeah, by current knowledge, is does look like you're right. :-)
I'm just glad that i can clear up any flasehoods about Evolution. Usually the people that criticise it are the people that don't understand it, and think that it is just a monkey literally turning into a man in one step.
Hey Gerrid, correct my logic about evolution being a long term name for adaptation was wrong. This logic is called Lamarckism. And yeah the example that you gave was much better than the one I am posting below: -
[/I]
Lamarckism
theory of evolution, now discredited, advocated during the early 19th century by French naturalist Jean Baptiste Lamarck.
Lamarckism is the theory that acquired characteristics were inherited. It differs from the Darwinian theory of evolution.
The theory was based on the idea that acquired characteristics were inherited: he argued that particular use of an organ or limb strengthens it, and that this development may be 'preserved by reproduction'.
For example, he suggested that giraffes have long necks because they are continually stretching them to reach high leaves; according to the theory, giraffes that have lengthened their necks by stretching will pass this characteristic on to their offspring.
[/I]
This one was taken from the net.
For anyone who finds it interesting.
[/I]
Lamarckism
theory of evolution, now discredited, advocated during the early 19th century by French naturalist Jean Baptiste Lamarck.
Lamarckism is the theory that acquired characteristics were inherited. It differs from the Darwinian theory of evolution.
The theory was based on the idea that acquired characteristics were inherited: he argued that particular use of an organ or limb strengthens it, and that this development may be 'preserved by reproduction'.
For example, he suggested that giraffes have long necks because they are continually stretching them to reach high leaves; according to the theory, giraffes that have lengthened their necks by stretching will pass this characteristic on to their offspring.
[/I]
This one was taken from the net.
For anyone who finds it interesting.
Anyways, you guys keep discussing a lot about Forest Fan and his thread. Can you give me his thread's address? I would be thankful to anyone who does so....
Thanks in advance...
Thanks in advance...
The third arguement is being processed.
I'd post it soon.
I'd post it soon.
Strafio wrote:
> the more the
> body would register it as "normal" and modify the genes...
> or maybe just modify the genes in the zygote
Here is your stumbling point - this just doesn't happen. You can't modify your genes in this way. To do so would mean changing many many lines of code in the DNA, and even one mistake would probably kill you. No organism can ever change its own DNA by will, there's just no mechanism for it to occur.
> the more the
> body would register it as "normal" and modify the genes...
> or maybe just modify the genes in the zygote
Here is your stumbling point - this just doesn't happen. You can't modify your genes in this way. To do so would mean changing many many lines of code in the DNA, and even one mistake would probably kill you. No organism can ever change its own DNA by will, there's just no mechanism for it to occur.
It makes sense but it doesnt happen. Trust me, you can't pass your suntan on to your children. You can try it if you like, but having a suntan is nothing to do with your genes! Your genes contain the code for "lots of sun = produce more skin pigment". When babies are born they haven't even been exposed to sunlight so they have the same amount of skin pigment as their parents genes add up to.
Honestly, getting a sun tan IS like breaking your leg in these terms, as there's no gene that controls it like that. There are genes that say "broken bone = produce bone healing hormone", and those get passed on to your offspring, but the broken bone, or your suntan, or the long hair that you have because you haven't cut it in a year, or the length of your fingernails, or the scar on your forehead, or your wrinkles - none of them will be passed on to your children because they are not in your genes. Your gametes don't mutate in any detectably intelligent way - you get as many, in fact more bad mutations than you get good mutations. Miscarriages are usually caused because the foetus has mutated fatal genes which prevent it from living, so the mothers body aborts it. If so called "intelligent mutation" occured, you wouldn't get any of these random miscarriages.
You can't control the mutations in your DNA, in fact there are several mechanisms to prevent any change in it. only mutagens, such as X rays or Gamma rays, or carcinogens change your DNA by causing mutations (almost always fatal or cancerous mutations).
This is the main reason that people don't believe in evolution - changes in DNA are almost always fatal, and people don't think that there would be enough benificial changes to cause the massive variety that we see on earth today. The thing is, it is almost impossible to imagine the time scale that evolution has occured on. It is so massive that people struggle to believe it.
Honestly, getting a sun tan IS like breaking your leg in these terms, as there's no gene that controls it like that. There are genes that say "broken bone = produce bone healing hormone", and those get passed on to your offspring, but the broken bone, or your suntan, or the long hair that you have because you haven't cut it in a year, or the length of your fingernails, or the scar on your forehead, or your wrinkles - none of them will be passed on to your children because they are not in your genes. Your gametes don't mutate in any detectably intelligent way - you get as many, in fact more bad mutations than you get good mutations. Miscarriages are usually caused because the foetus has mutated fatal genes which prevent it from living, so the mothers body aborts it. If so called "intelligent mutation" occured, you wouldn't get any of these random miscarriages.
You can't control the mutations in your DNA, in fact there are several mechanisms to prevent any change in it. only mutagens, such as X rays or Gamma rays, or carcinogens change your DNA by causing mutations (almost always fatal or cancerous mutations).
This is the main reason that people don't believe in evolution - changes in DNA are almost always fatal, and people don't think that there would be enough benificial changes to cause the massive variety that we see on earth today. The thing is, it is almost impossible to imagine the time scale that evolution has occured on. It is so massive that people struggle to believe it.
Yeah, because there's a gene for arm breakage...
I'm not saying that it's definately not random chance, becuase it might be. But it might not. I don't think scientists have fully pegged that bit yet.
I think you're thinking in terms of black and white, when there's a whole multitude of colours that people are born with, different shades and the like. Sure, if some white couple lived in Africa for 40 years, their children wouldn't be native black, but I bet they'd be atleast a tiny bit darker than otherwise.
And the more that child lived in Africa under the sun, the more the skin would get tanned, the more permanent the tan was, the more the body would register it as "normal" and modify the genes... or maybe just modify the genes in the zygote to match the coat of tanned skin they were wearing then.
I mean, it's not a yes but it's not a no.
Random mutation is just a theory.
There's no reason why there can't be intelligent mutation.
It makes a lot more sense.
I'm not saying that it's definately not random chance, becuase it might be. But it might not. I don't think scientists have fully pegged that bit yet.
I think you're thinking in terms of black and white, when there's a whole multitude of colours that people are born with, different shades and the like. Sure, if some white couple lived in Africa for 40 years, their children wouldn't be native black, but I bet they'd be atleast a tiny bit darker than otherwise.
And the more that child lived in Africa under the sun, the more the skin would get tanned, the more permanent the tan was, the more the body would register it as "normal" and modify the genes... or maybe just modify the genes in the zygote to match the coat of tanned skin they were wearing then.
I mean, it's not a yes but it's not a no.
Random mutation is just a theory.
There's no reason why there can't be intelligent mutation.
It makes a lot more sense.
Strafio you're ideas are the same as those of a lot of people before they got a chance to look at natural selection occuring.
Trust me, if you went and lived in Africa for 40 years with your wife, and then you had a baby, it would be as pink and white as you were the day you were born. The only way that sunlight changes your DNA is by giving you cancer. Browning skin is a reaction to sunlight, and it's something that can be reversed and it's never passed on genetically.
The main advantage that white skin cofers is that you can produce more Vitamin D in your skin. Seeing as how you find white people in areas with less intense sunshine, this makes sense, because people with white skin have an advantage in low-light areas like northern Europe.
There's no way that black people who went to live in Europe became paler and then passed on this paleness when they had children, because their change in skin colour wasn't permenant and wasn't in their DNA.
The best way to think of it is probably if you break your arm, then impregnate your wife who also has a broken arm, your baby isn't going to have a broken arm as well, is it?
Trust me, if you went and lived in Africa for 40 years with your wife, and then you had a baby, it would be as pink and white as you were the day you were born. The only way that sunlight changes your DNA is by giving you cancer. Browning skin is a reaction to sunlight, and it's something that can be reversed and it's never passed on genetically.
The main advantage that white skin cofers is that you can produce more Vitamin D in your skin. Seeing as how you find white people in areas with less intense sunshine, this makes sense, because people with white skin have an advantage in low-light areas like northern Europe.
There's no way that black people who went to live in Europe became paler and then passed on this paleness when they had children, because their change in skin colour wasn't permenant and wasn't in their DNA.
The best way to think of it is probably if you break your arm, then impregnate your wife who also has a broken arm, your baby isn't going to have a broken arm as well, is it?
Page: