First read this article: Creation.com (well you don't need to, but i'm responding to it)
a quick bio of the author of this amazing article:
Mark Johansen is a software engineer working in the defence industry. He has published articles in computer magazines such as Datamation and Dr Dobbs Journal, and has contributed to textbooks on population and criminology. Mark is from Ohio, USA.
So obviously he is well versed in science and biology... My response to his article? As follows:
1. Firstly, appeal to authority is only a logical fallacy when the person has no expertise on the matter (much like yourself). Look up the definition of ad verecundiam and you will see...
Secondly i don't understand how them not being alive for 500 years means? Because they didn't discover gravity (or were there) therefore they are not scientists? Either you are insane or you just wrote that uhhh, 'argument', poorly...
2. You cannot witness Evolution ergo it is not true. A great argument. Have you been to the moon? The landing was actually faked you know, you weren't there so how do you know they landed there? If that is too 'conspiracy theorist' to understand then how about Galileo: He proposed a heliocentric theory some 400 years before it could ever be proven with satellites. I'm not saying that this is any case for evolution being true, i'm saying that argument you use is complete bullocks because proof doesn't always mean direct observation of the event actually occurring...
3 and 4. Evolution doesn't always act intuitively you know. The easiest thing to say would be that humans are all born with appendixes, these serve absolutely no purpose in the body that is not already provided, except sometimes (if you're unlucky) they will explode and require intensive surgery. Through evolution we predict that the appendix once contained many enzymes used in the break down of plant material, but human's (or their ancestors) began evolving to eat meat, and so the appendix has being phased out (or is in the process of). By the way it is true that you cannot in fact digest plant matter such cellulose, the polysaccharide found in plant leaves. Look it up.
And for the record, Peacocks have large colourful tails to attract mates. Evolution favours those who find mates easier. You will notice most other male birds are also extremely bright in colour - something which would be incredibly detrimental is they were being chased, don't you think? However it's great for impressing female birds. I'm sure if you looked more into it you would've found that out though...
5. I can't say much about the Cambrian explosion because I don't know much about it. I do know that there are many different theories on the matter though, the rapid evolution theory is one of many though. All i can say is that biologists are studying it and trying to explain it in the thoery of Evolution. This is how science grows and learns more things. If we were all to take your solution where would we be?
6. Ahh Empodocles. Yes curious how you left out the evidence as to what he was actually talking about and instead just alluded to him (as an offside this is a horrible argument, and you wrote it horribly as well). His theories were that everything was made of four elements, and that they worked and molded together to form life. However different parts from different creatures formed together incorrectly (such as oxen with human heads) and that eventually when human and human parts were matched together life was created! Sounds great right? I can see how it sounds so similar to evolution... Definitely not like Creationism at all. Seriously though, all joking aside, this has nothing to do with evolution in the slightest degree of the sense... His theory describes a sort of 'instant' appearance of all life as we know it, albeit it isn't from god (its from the four elements) but it sounds more like creationism then evolution to me.
Plus, since when did being 'old and pagan' have anything to do with legitimacy. Most modern mathematics originated with ancient Greek philosophers. Hell the entire western world is based on their very principles (democracy and such). If that is a little to hard to understand for you then remember that the Bible is also that old. It may not be pagan to you, but i can assure you it is old.
7. I don't understand what you're getting at with the horse though. How is it not an example of Evolution? it is change over time on a particular species. If there is a wide variation of a kind then it just shows that the strongest survive. Scientists will group together similar species which exited over the ages to find a common ancestor, this is evolution. I honestly do not understand this point at all, perhaps someone else could explain it more (or maybe he wrote it poorly).
You mean the Crocoduck? Yeah what a crock-of-shit. That's not what evolution is, it isn't a change from one species to another in one step. A Duck just won't start evolving into a crocodile one day. A duck may evolve to have webbed feet because it's easier to swim though. Or a Crocodile may evolve to have a trap-jaw to prevent prey from escaping after it's chomped down. Those are real examples of evolution. Something will evolve to make it better suited to the environment it is in (not always for the better mind you), whatever helps it survive, eat and reproduce will generally be things which we notice, because anything else will die out.
8. Hahaha i love this, lucky for me you cited the original article this is from, well not really since it has been deleted from the site. However i looked up the lady who wrote it, turns out she is a moral philosopher, not an evolutionary biologist...
Midgley, M., Evolution as a religion: a comparison of prophecies, science, ethics, and religion, , October 2005.
Considering that evolution at it's core basically is not moral (whoever survives will reproduce more) it is understandable people will disagree (ie everyone deserves a fair shot). It makes sense that a moral philosopher of all people will disagree with it heavily... She is however not a reputable source for anything having to do with evolution. Pick your sources better next time and don't take things out of context.
9. I remember reading about Pasteur's experiments in my grade 9 science textbook. I can assure you there was an extensive scientific apparatus involved... To suggest otherwise is just flat-out dishonest. Everything you said is complete bogus so allow me to copy this from wikipedia :D
He exposed boiled broths to air in vessels that contained a filter to prevent all particles from passing through to the growth medium, and even in vessels with no filter at all, with air being admitted via a long tortuous tube that would not allow dust particles to pass. Nothing grew in the broths unless the flasks were broken open; therefore, the living organisms that grew in such broths came from outside, as spores on dust, rather than spontaneously generated within the broth. This was one of the last and most important experiments disproving the theory of spontaneous generation. The experiment also supported germ theory.
To explain a little more (this is me talking, not wikipedia) He boiled the broth extensively until it was clear (as opposed to brownish). This removed all bacteria from the broth. Then it was sealed so nothing could get in, it remained free from bacteria. Once air was let in, bacteria began forming. This doesn't contradict any theory, it showed that life does not spontaneously appear... not that "no life can come from non-living things." This is a very dishonest quote as that was not his intent when conducting the experiment in the first place.
10. This next quote here absolutely disgusts me, and you should honestly be ashamed of yourself for even including it here. For reference:
Cooper, R.A., The goal of evolutionary instruction: belief or literacy?, National Center for Science Education, , 19 June 2006.
Ncse.com (scroll down to EVOLUTION AND THE NATURE OF SCIENCE)
Not only did you cut out crucial parts of his argument but you skewed them to make it look as if he were slamming the scientific method. This is called quote mining, and it is an incredibly bad thing to do (to put it incredibly mildly). I hate it when people do this because it means they have no substance to their argument, and they know it. His point was that students have a naive view of what the Scientific method is and what it is used for. Also how with evolution, the research is ongoing for it and we do not have all the facts yet. It is actually a well written article in my opinion, which makes it all the worse that you've taken it out of context.
Well I've already countered every argument you have so your conclusion is obviously incorrect. Even if it wasn't you're basically stating that it would be easier for me to lie down, separate my spirit from my body, and transcend the astral planes of existence, than it would be for me to believe that animals adapt and change based on their environment... So i need to explain more how much horse shit your article is?
So here is my own conclusion: You've committed the most horrible acts of argumentative sin. You have lied, used logical fallacies, skewed facts, not reported facts, and worst of all: you have quote mined. I am ashamed that you could have written this down in any form of serious manner, i am ashamed that i had to read and respond to this (not really because it's fun to show how stupid people are), and i actually feel dumber by reading this...