Top Evidences Against the Theory of Evolution

by badman Fri May 24, 2002 15:23

And I've never met an anarchist who disputed the theory of evolution, even the nutty primitivists who call themselves anarchists don't dare question evolution. In fact I'd say that Darwin's theory of natural selection would be one of the favourite theories of anarchists, most admired for it's simplicity and power. Kropotkin, the famous anarchist from the late 19th century, even wrote an entire book on evolution, called 'mutual aid', outlining how evolution tends to favour those species which evolve the ability to best cooperate through mutual aid. The bulk of Kropotkin's work on evolution remains unchallenged to this day, as far as I know.

by badman Fri May 24, 2002 15:04

#1. Yes there are, this is a lie. For example since Darwin's day thousands of transitional forms have been found. By all means this does not amount to a complete record of all transitions but this can be explained by a number of factors, primarily 1) that climatic conditions in some epochs were not conducive to the preservation of fossils and 2) that evolution is now understood to be a process that does not occur at a uniform rate, instead large leaps seem to occur during periods of environmental change when a large number of transitional forms occur in a relatively short amount of time (geologically speaking), rendering it extremely improbable that fossils of these short lived forms will survive.

#2. The concept of a 'Higher order' is hocus pocus mysticism. Evolution of the brain and intelligence is 100% consistent with evolution.

#3. What happens is by its definition a possibility of the natural world. The theory of DNA resulting from a cosmic soup of amino acids is entirely possible. Who ever said that matter came from nothing? I think you've just made this up. And as for one type of animal (man) evolving from another type of animal, what evidence do you have to call this impossible.

#4. All of the palaeontologists are in a giant conspiracy to pretend that hominid fossils exist showing markedly different bone formations than modern man? Puhleez!

#5. Says who? Again these hominids show clear evolutionary differences from the great apes and from modern man. Man is just another of the great apes, what is ape and what is man is just a matter of where you draw your classification line, it is meaningless in itself. The important things is that these species show clear and distinct differences from all modern life forms.

#6 Oh yeah, Neanderthals are fully modern humans, it's just that all of the surviving fossils come from deformed humans who had strangely shaped skulls, stunted postures and eyebrow ridges.

#7. Bullshit. Natural selection is a beautiful and powerful theory. The theory is simple yet powerful enough to account for all known evidence of life on this planet. There are no known inconsistencies with the theory per se.

#8. You're just restating the bullshit from #7, call this evidence?!

#9. Ha ha ha ha ha ha. So countless different strata of rocks, each of which, according to geologists, must have formed over millions of years, can be best explained by a flood?????

Really you creationists should not bother with this science thing, keep to your mysticism and don't go wasting our time. The thing is that religion never really got over the theory of evolution, which basically says that the entire history of life, from the first microbe to the human being, is explicable without assuming the existence of god. So, in explaining all life on this planet, we can say that 'god is a hypothesis that we have no use of', thus, with a nod to Occam, we can assume that god does not exist.

What about extinct species? God's little mistakes? God testing our faith? what nonsense.

by King Mob Fri May 24, 2002 15:03

A variety of people trawl these Indymedia sites posting a variety of views.

I very much doubt the person who wrote this is an anarchist, alot of divergant groups use Indymedia to espouse their views. Whether they are crack pot or not. Conversatives, Anti Semites, Anarchists, pro Israeli, Pro Capitalism and Anti Capitalist groups post stories.

My favourite is the guy who suggested all the World gold reserves should be melted down and used to build a Golden Temple in Bethelhem, so all the peoples of the earth come together and worship god.

by george w Fri May 24, 2002 14:31

I usually have to bit my lip when I read this site because of the usual rantings of anarchists trying to persuade us to abandon government and live in trees in communes, or socialists trying to convince us that Leninist dictatorships are better than democracies, but this evolution debate is just taking the piss. What next, is evolution a CIA conspiracy designed to get us all working in McDonalds by 2010? Grow up.

by neogeo Fri May 24, 2002 11:43

Be it Daivd Icke, Timeshares, Pyramid Schemes, Scientology or this rubbish there will always be the ignorant (easily seperated from their money) to listen to this crap.

And it dosen't have any place here. The author can take his/her/lizardself up to those head cases on middle abbey steet. And tell them they can shove their personality test up their ass.

by Ray Fri May 24, 2002 11:28

What's next, an astrology column? Posts about the giant lizards that rule the world? Warnings that the end is nigh?

This kind of uninformed, ignorant crap doesn't belong on here.

by Michael Ronan O'Connell Fri May 24, 2002 09:44

In the same way that God is unproveable, so to is evolutionary theory. Mabye the truth consists of a combination of both. Unproveable regardless.

Terry if you say the "evidence listed is pure lies" - that is quite a bland comment. Can you state how each individual piece of argument is a pure lie.

by Terry Thu May 23, 2002 21:04

These are just the usual creationist arguments trotted out
again and the so called evidence listed is pure lies.

This posting is simply an attempt to try and get attention
from those elements of the Left who are not so knowledge on
science and will happily fall for the ploy that this is pushed
by Capitalist and therefore worth getting suckered into the
creationist argument.

Science while in those areas touched by money has been
corrupted, but otherwise in general works well and is
always utimately validated against nature itself and
not someone's political agenda.

Please save us from these futile reglious debates.