It has been amusing reading the discussions on this Forum regarding Evolution vs. Creation.
Some have used the terms “faith”, the “Bible“, “God“…while others refute with terms such as “fables” “Fairy Tales”, “fact” “true” and “proven ”.
Believers of Creationism have been labeled stupid, non-thinking, “sheeple”, and ignorant for basing their beliefs / convictions on a un-proven deity. One which cannot be physically seen, or touched. Their reply being “faith”.
Some go even further with endless “quotations”.
Evolutionist profess to be “scholarly” “academic” ”thinkers” and believe only in factual science.
While not delving into the basis/theory for Creationism (that’s pretty much been established among the believers/non-believers here) I would like to point out the facts, truths, and proofs of the Evolution Theory in order to present a more level “playing field” for those who wish to know what is concrete “fact” and what is “concept”.
Let’s call it the “Swiss Cheese” experiment.
Starting with a solid chunk of “cheese”, let’s examine.
Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: \'thē-ə-rē, 'thir-ē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the·o·ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein
Date: 1592
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : speculation
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject
Many THEORIES have been advanced as explanations for the origin and history of life on Earth. The most popular with the majority of evolutionary theorists is the primordial soup theory, which states that self-replicating entities, the precursors to life as we know it, arose spontaneously out of the chemical environment of the early Earth. This THEORY argues that the CHANCE reactions taking place at high rates in the chemical mixture of the early atmosphere EVENTUALLY gave rise to molecules with the property of replication.
The Primordial Soup Theory
The exact environment of the early atmosphere on Earth is NOT known,(first hole NOT KNOWN) but some chemicals have been hypothesized: carbon dioxide, ammonia, water, and methane. When gases such as these are placed in a flask (FLASK...Man made) and zapped with electricity, amino acids and other organic molecules are formed. (Stanley Miller pioneered these experiments; however, the atmosphere is now THOUGHT (hole, THOUGHT is not PROOF) to be less favorable to the formation of organic molecules than once believed.) These results IMPLY (hole) that energy stimulation of these molecules, POSSIBLY(hole)in the form of lightning or ultraviolet radiation, or even pressure waves, can under certain conditions form complex organic substances. At some point, after many repetitions of the energy stimulation, a molecule was formed by CHANCE that had a very unique property: it COULD replicate itself using various component molecules in its environment. For example, a molecule whose chemical properties allowed it to cause other molecules to react, thus forming two of the original molecule, COULD quickly set up a population of such self-replicating molecules. (This idea of the generation of life from nonliving chemicals is called abiogenesis.)
At first, the new replicator WOULD HAVE(not “had”?…HOLE) free run of the chemical resources in the primordial soup. The replicators WOULD PROBABLY(not DID?…hole) reproduce freely under such conditions because they would have a monopoly on the available resources. In addition, the sheer numbers of copies being made, added to the fact that the replicator would be very primitive and without editing mechanisms, would result in numerous copying errors. These errors are mutations that will later be used in the development of natural selection.
After a while, the replicators WOULD HAVE(hole)used up many of the available chemicals in the soup (especially in localized areas), and they came into direct competition with each other for the use of the remaining resources. This set up a situation where natural selection COULD (not DID?…hole) begin to operate on the population. Those replicators that were better at reproducing, either because they reproduced faster, out-competed others for resources, used fewer chemicals, etc., came to dominate the soup. Natural selection favored those that possessed traits allowing them to out-replicate the others.
After a LONG TIME (?), the resources of the area would become extremely scarce. Selection pressure would come into existence strongly favoring those replicators that could synthesize at least some of their own chemicals needed for reproduction. Once a certain chemical became scarce, selection pressure WOULD FAVOR (not FAVORED…hole) those replicators that produced the chemical themselves.
Eventually, it seems reasonable to THEORIZE (see definition of: theory)that replicators MIGHT (did?…hole) begin manufacturing enough chemicals that they would want to keep all the chemicals close by. One way to do this is to manufacture a container (made of chemicals that the replicator can already manufacture). This was the precursor to modern cells.
Other replicators would have ("would have" appears a lot) evolved alternative strategies for dealing with the intense competition for resources. They MAY HAVE(where’s DID…hole) developed ways of manufacturing chemicals that broke down other replicators into their component structures, thus providing raw materials from the destruction of competitors. Still others may have (?…hole) evolved new chemicals with new and improved properties and thus out-competed the other replicators.
Cooperative Replicators and the Development of Vehicles
Over time, replicators probably ( shouldn’t this word be omitted for this to be “fact”?…’nuther hole) began to cooperate among themselves, with multiple replicators existing together in an aggregate, each producing a different chemical or performing a different function. These "replicator teams" quickly came to incorporate the container idea mentioned above, for the dual reason of keeping chemicals in one area and holding the replicator team together. In time, under the influence of continual competition and selection, the replicators would come to develop more and more organized, advanced structures. These structures would likely (more “hole”) be devoted to manufacture of chemicals, storage, repair, etc. Cell organelles were born.
With the birth of the proto-cell, the first vehicle would arise. With organelles, replicators would become more and more specialized while developing greater and greater complexity in their biochemical pathways. The end result of all this developmental activity is the ancestral bacterium.
The Development of Eukaryotes
Bacteria, the most primitive of modern-day cells, lack a nucleus to direct and regulate cell function and are thus called prokaryotes. This is consistent with the model of their evolution: various replicators coming together and cooperating, but without the guidance of a central system. However, to form eukaryotic cells (cells with nuclei), a “Guidance System” is needed.
This guidance system will most likely (not DID) arise from the replicators themselves eventually. The replicators, increasingly specialized, will be too numerous in a complex cell to simply float about, and they will concentrate in one region. This region may (hole) develop a membrane for protection, and the nucleus is born.
Further development of the eukaryotic cell will take place when some of them begin to ingest other cells as sources of chemicals. At some point, the other cells might not (hole)have been broken down by the proto-eukaryote's digestive chemicals. These ingested cells might (hole)then provide extra energy to the larger cell, thus establishing an endosymbiotic relationship. This is believed (hole) to have taken place in the incorporation of mitochondria, chloroplasts, and even cilia into eukaryotic cells.
The Development of Multicellular Organisms
After a long while, individual eukaryotic cells probably (hole) made the same "discovery" made much earlier by the individual replicators. They would come to work in teams, each cell contributing to the good of the team just as the replicators had. In time, they might combine genetic material to yield multicellular organisms. In these organisms, all the genetic material of the entire organism is present in every cell, but only certain genes are turned on in each cell, giving rise to cell specialization.
Further Specialization and Development
From this point, it is fairly simple to imagine (hole)the general idea of the rest of the story of evolution: multicellular organisms branched and diversified to occupy new ecological niches, adapting as they went to their new environments. As these diversifications took place, the multicellular organisms increased in complexity in proportion to the demands of the environment. Eyes, skeletons, nervous systems, and backbones, as well as numerous other adaptations, all arose through gradual selection of mutations. As competition increased, species continued to diversify, (how?) especially in areas where population density was high. Life eventually moved out of the ocean and ventured onto land, where more and more species were formed. Eventually, extremely large and complex organisms evolved. Finally, one of the more advanced groups - the primates - emerged, and with it eventually came the human species.
Now, has our “solid” chunk of Evolutionary “cheese” suddenly become full of “holes”? Where's the SOLID, FACTUAL, PROOF?
Fill in those holes…and you have my attention.
Original Post