Your evidence contradicts your conclusion? What?
So, we're learning about evolution in biology class. Great stuff, truly first class. It's actually quite interesting to see just how little actual, conclusive evidence there is. I mean, the whole clay molecule template stuff? Not even scientific. BY the way, scientific means that there has been an experiment replicating something observed and then observing further to see if the hypothesis fits reality. Wait, what? There's been no such experiment? So it's pulled from someones a.. and is therefore complete bull...? Ah ok ok.
What is awesome about these classes, are the questions that get no answers. "So, how did the amino acids [which were formed in water, the ocean presupposedly] get dry to form bonds [which wouldn't have happened, because amino acids kinda aren't active outta some sort of catalyst, oh yeah, and there wouldn't have been much land at that point] and then become wet again to form the loop to go into the clay?" "Oh, err... well, remember this is just a theory".
And there we have it. À propos, a scientific theory doesn't mean that something isn't proven, it just means that that is the thought. Gravitation is a theory, and we have a pretty good idea whether or not it's true. But, the acknowledgment, albeit involuntary, that the evolution theory isn't a proper scientific theory but rather a suggestion, with little actual proof [you know, that... proven, stuff], like the other meaning of the word "theory", is just precious.
It's almost funny. Something so believed to be scientific, factual, objective and concrete is little of any of those, just like what it seeks to destroy: faith.
It claims to not need divine intervention to be true, it claims to be shown as fact, yet has so many holes in its logic and evidence that any other theory would have been tossed ages ago.
So, what is proven? Well, we have natural selection and speciation covered. We have pretty well observed and shown that over time species change and adapt, and that animals are capable of many extensive variations within their kind.
One thing that we've also shown is that natural selection implies a loss of genetic information, not a gain, like would be implied by evolution. This is why we have zoos and environmental groups. If we lose a species, it ain't coming back, we know that. If you lose a strain of gene, it's gone from the gene pool, never to be recovered. If a species changes over time, its DNA loses variety, and does not gain any info to become anything else. This is also shown. Why does everyone forget it?
So what isn't proven? Well, the rest: that animals all come from one same ancestor. It's the supposed conclusion of the theory, that everything goes to back to one singular animal. But it ain't scientifically proven. Just supposed. You can't prove it empirically anyway, because it only happened once.
What, a creation/evolution stalemate?
Sadly, it's come to the point where no one even knows what the heck is actually proven and what has been discredited, and most notably, the teaching staff and curriculum have no bloody clue as to where the world is actually at in terms of knowledge.
We have received Ernst Haeckel's sketches of human embryos
that accompanied Von Baer's theory of embryonic similarity , which were thoroughly discredited in 1868 by his own contemporaries:
"Within months of the publication of Haeckel’s work in 1868, L. Rütimeyer, professor of zoology and comparative anatomy at the University of Basel, showed it to be fraudulent. William His Sr, professor of anatomy at the University of Leipzig, and a famous comparative embryologist, corroborated Rütimeyer’s criticisms.3 These scientists showed that Haeckel fraudulently modified his drawings of embryos to make them look more alike. " - W.H. Rusch Sr., Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny, Creation Research Society Quarterly 6(1):27–34, 1969.
It has been even more discredited when pictures of the embryos were taken at the various stages:
(Michael Richardson et al, Anatomy and Embryology, 196(2):91–106, 1997.)
I mean, come on, the dude even confessed to falsifying it. When confronted about his representation of these drawings:
whereby he drew these:
he had this to say:
"‘… a small portion of my embryo-pictures (possibly 6 or 8 in a hundred) are really (in Dr Brass’s [one of his critics] sense of the word) “falsified” — all those, namely, in which the disclosed material for inspection is so incomplete or insufficient that one is compelled in a restoration of a connected development series to fill up the gaps through hypotheses, and to reconstruct the missing members through comparative syntheses. What difficulties this task encounters, and how easily the draughts- man may blunder in it, the embryologist alone can judge.’"- Letter to Münchener Allegemeine Zeitung, ‘an international weekly for Science, Art and Technology’, published on January 9, 1909.
He's not directly saying that he did anything wrong, of course.
Come on peeps, 1909, that's a preeeeeeeeetty long time ago to still be using these pictures, even if his conclusions are now accepted as false. The images are falsified. This isn't a disproof of evolution or a proof for creation. It's just plain wrong, and shouldn't be used by anyone as evidence of anything.
Now, leaving the Peppered Moth thing, which i really don't have a problem with because it's a proof of natural selection, even if the pictures of them on the tree trunks are fake, as well...
Now, to the particular thing that started the rant...
When talking about human evolution, a diagram explaining the two theories of human decent came up. The two theories state that either there was one African ancestor that had three different branches that then went their separate ways to Asia, Europe and Africa, or that there was one African ancestor that spawned three different branches, two of which are no longer around, and the other one having spawned relatively recently all other types of human. The latter one is the one that is most accepted, due to a study in mitochondrial DNA.
All of your mitochondrial DNA comes form your mother, as a sperm call only gives 23 chromosomes and no organelles. The researchers have supposedly traced all mitochondrial DNA back to one female named, quaintly, "Eve", who lived 200 000 years ago in Africa.
Now, let's examine this evidence, logically. All mitochondrial DNA seems to originate from one point. Now, we all know that the evolution theory does not work in a way where you have a succession of evolutionary steps and then BAM! Human being. This is not how it works. The way it works, is untold masses of varying creatures that then, over time, gradually become a different animal. But there isn't a dramatic cut off stage, a sudden instant when the ancestors ceases to be the ancestor and become the THING. It's subtle, not sudden. So tell me, logically: does all mitochondrial DNA being able to be traced back to ONE SINGLE BEING prove that humans are the result of a long process of minute change, or does it suggest, oh i dunno, humans all of a sudden appearing out of no where, like say, being created as is? Mitochondrial DNA would have had to be present in many millions of "links" before this "Eve" by necessity int he evolution theory. It is absurd that mitochondrial DNA would all of a sudden appear in a single point by evolutionary necessity. Mitochondrial DNA would have had to have been present in many more animals than just one at a certain point in time... Human mitochondrial DNA don't just appear out of nowhere, suddenly, in evolution.
Are you getting this? It is impossible for it to be so by your own damn presuppositions. Your evidence is evidence for the opposite of your belief. And yet you've spun it to be proof for your own theory.
Your evidence contradicts your conclusion. What?