Was Darwin wrong? 2of5

When Charles Darwin wrote The Origin Of Species, he was unaware of genetics and the fossil record had only just begun to be uncovered. This explanatory framework has become the central platform of all aspects of modern biology in explaining the diversity of life on this planet. Was Darwin right or did he get it wrong? How does Darwin's theory of natural selection hold up after 150 years of scrutiny under the the rigour of the scientific method? Here we examine the key aspects of Darwin's work, which if falsified, would be the greatest scientific upheval in history.

Every home should have the National Geographic Channel

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=461C240F58

Category:

Education

Tags:

• charles
• darwin
• evolution
• creationism
• intelligent
• design

[BamBasse]

Well, you know. A little dubious logic and some Bible quotes are enough for creationists to "debunk" anything scientific. Should that fail for them, they can always call it "intellectual arrogance". :)

[halelorf]

Kind of sad that the opposing "theory" against evolution stands here on the eye being "so well designed". Yet the eye isn't built well at all. Like needing glasses and the blind spot of the eye. "I don't understand so magic man dun it!" pathetic.

[ndrthrdr1]

@shadywolf91 I don't know if it was one person or more than one, but at least YouTube doesn't let it happen any more.

[shadywolf91]

@ndrthrdr1 Yeah I figured something like that probably happened. I've seen it all over, I wonder if there is one individual controlling them all o.O, probably not though.

[ndrthrdr1]

@shadywolf91 There were vote bot attacks a couple of years ago. Vote bots (short for "voting robot computer programs") were used by fundamentalist religiotards to dump fake Dislikes on these videos in an attempt to con people into thinking that most people actually dislike these videos.

Click like on these videos to dilute the effect of the vote bots. Never underestimate the devious dishonesty of religious nuts.

[shadywolf91]

I can only imagine that all the negative votes are from creationists who deny evolution... For some reason some people seem to believe that if evolution is wrong, their primitive superstitions will become true. Quite sad really...

[VinnyMonster1]

Well, if God is real, and if God has such absolute power, then wouldn't he be able to create life that was just as advanced as in the real world but did not need any of the organs that life needs in reality? I mean God is magic, isn't he?

[yhenry77]

@mistereveready In 1665, Robert Hooke published the first drawings of a microorganism. Hooke was followed in 1676 by Anton van Leeuwenhoek, Many felt the existence of microorganisms was evidence in support of spontaneous generation.

A team of 17 researchers from the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) created the largest man-made DNA structure by synthesizing and assembling the 582,970 base pair genome of a bacterium called Mycoplasma genitalium.

I have two videos on YouTube search "yhenry77"

[mistereveready]

@yhenry77 Abiogenesis for over 300 years? Should also research how Venter maid his synthetic cell. More over, apparently were not the first forms of life, self replicating chemicals such as rna were, which lead to cell development.

[yhenry77]

I agree that abiogenesis is different from evolution, but the 15 year project had nothing to do with abiogenesis. They have been trying it for over 300 years and even with a full strand of synthetic DNA; it still didn't work. They at the Craig Venter Center soon realized that and had to use a host cell. We must now look at the scientific evidence and ask what did it show us? That is what are minds are made for, we can't ignore the scientific data. Wake up the new dawn is here!

[mistereveready]

@yhenry77 Once again, Abiogenesis is different from Evolution. Also the DFD you mention is a very sketchy document, misrepresenting some of the people, padding numbers with anyone who has a phd and is willing to sign. Furthermore, truth is not a matter of democracy. This is not to say Darwin was 100% right. He made many mistakes, of which many were corrected, much like any other scientific theory. Evolution isn't an argument from authority basing anything on a book like religions do.

[yhenry77]

@mistereveready I am just looking at the evidence; the Craig Venter project is the only successful created synthetic life form. The fact he is an atheist doesn't affect outcome of scientific data. There are over 700 scientists (Ph.D.) have sign a statement (Dissent From Darwinism) which reads "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."