Proof of Creationism Theory

[Data]

Proof of Creationism Theory

BACKGROUND:

The theory of evolution is founded on a pure scientific approach. It is pure because it follows a path of logic and reason. It starts with a hypothesis. It adds argument that can be proven conclusively and therefore must be accepted. It takes these proven arguments and builds upon them further conclusions which must be equally accepted because the sum of the whole is 100% if each of the individual parts is also 100%. This same logical thinking is used in the creation of computer programs. Such is why computers can perform computations on numbers with 100% accuracy and at incredibly fast speeds. I am a person who admires clear logic and reason, and such is why my chosen profession is as an engineer of databases. I have always been impressed with the “pureness” of scientific approach which governs evolution.

It is with this pureness of logic that I eventually resolved to conclude that evolution can not be possible as the only explanation for life as it exists in our world today. The only conclusion can be that our world, as it exists today, can only be the result of a force far greater than our understanding could allow. This conclusion does not prove that a single God as spoken of within monotheistic religious literature is the source, therefore does not prove any particular story or version of creationism. What it will prove is the existence of a resource that has strength and powers to create life and to have created our world we live in.

The theory of evolution is based on the premise that life forms have modified themselves to adapt to the needs of survival. Life started as simplistic single cell beings, and expanded in complexity over the course of time. To all best understanding of life on earth, it was first formed approximately 4.5 billions years ago. Another way of looking at that number is 4,500 million years ago. It seems that it remained relatively unchanged and persisted as a very simple form for over 4 billion years. It wasn’t until only 430 million years ago that life supposedly made its first significant change and evolved beyond being very simple.

The evolution theory supports two basic premises for the process of evolution to take place. Both proceed along to conclude that life forms which have an advantage over the other life forms of their species have a higher survival rate, thus a higher reproductive rate. A species is defined as a life form which can only reproduce with other similar life forms. Some rare exceptions are mules, but they are born sterile and therefore can’t replicate their traits to future generations. An interesting thought to mull around is the difference between a Chihuahua dog and a Saint Bernard dog. The Chihuahua is small, flat faced, bug-eyed, short haired, long legged, and has a slender body, whilst the Saint Bernard is the exact opposite. If archeologists were to dig up a set of bones from each, would they conclude them to be from the same species?



THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION – 2 POSSIBILITIES:
The first premise holds that some members of a species posses a moderate advantage to favor one or many traits to better enable their survival, and that over an extended period of time, these favored traits resolve to become a distinct difference in the species. A simple example is when tallness to reach at things high above is a trait that will allow more access to food, and then taller members of the species will survive and reproduce more than will the shorter members. After extended time, the more favored tall members eventually become the rule instead of the exception, and thus the species has undergone a change. This change also resolves to not be able to reproduce with unchanged members of the species, supposedly after a prolonged period of time has passed, thus defining it as a new species.

The second premise holds that mutations in species occur. Some of these mutations are strongly favorable to the species. When in the slight and rare circumstance they occur, the life forms with such mutations resolve to reproduce and pass them on, presumably reproducing with other members of the species with the same mutation thus enhancing the probability of it being passed on. Similar to the first premise, the end result is a modification to the species and the ultimate creation of a new and different species.


IRRECONCILABLE DETAILS OF EVOLUTION THEORY:

This argument will now step through several circumstances of evolution which seem unable to be reconciled with logic.

The logical flow of evolution should favor the ability to perceive sensory inputs. Enhancements to the sensory input of sight would seem to give a tremendous advantage. For this understanding, we need to really “step out of the box” in our thinking, and think with the mindset of what would be most favorable to evolution. It becomes obvious that a great advantage in sight would be the ability to see all around. One possible design would be the evolution of a single eye that encircles the entire head, enabling sight from all directions and thus eliminating surprise attacks from behind. However, there exists no such eye anywhere in life forms that exist now or of life forms from supposed previous evolutionary states. The creation of two separate eyes only in the front part of the head with a limited peripheral scope is seemingly in contrast to what would be logically favored by evolution.

The next item of difficulty to reconcile is flight. Birds and all flying animals are a tremendous accomplishment. An argument can be presented to explain how an animal that jumps from limb to limb within the trees could resolve to developing traits that enhance this need, such as favoring specific muscles to be stronger or to favor lighter bones for easier floating. Argument can also be presented to explain how a fish may develop strong jumping skills, and how wider fins on the fish may enhance the ability to float in the air above the water, thus allowing for it to evolve into a life form having wings and capable of flying. However, most animals of flight are not the result of evolving from fish with fins. Most are supposedly the result of evolution occurring to animals that had appendages such as arms and/or legs.

In order for an animal with appendages to take flight with wings evolved, it would have to grow skin that attaches between its arm appendages and its upper body torso. Referencing earlier when we discussed how evolution takes place, this skin growth would have to occur in one of two ways, either by gradual modification over time or by mutation. Neither of these is reasonable. It is NOT reasonable to conclude that if an animal jumps between the limbs of trees often enough, or performs any other act which makes it airborne, that skin would start to grow between its arms and torso. Many other reasonable factors could be influenced by such act, muscle strength or lighter bones being a couple of them, but; it isn’t reasonable to conclude that skin would start growing where otherwise it had never grown. There would not exist a driving factor to make it happen. This would eliminate the first premise as a possible cause for evolution, leaving only the second, that of mutation. The concept of mutation is exactly as its name implies, mutations are random modifications to the common form of a species. They include almost anything imaginable. Therefore, the probability of a mutation to cause skin to grow as necessary to create a wing structure to enable flight is no more probable than any other mutation of similar complexity. Such mutations are also not limited to animals that may gain benefit from it, but are equally possible to occur in all animals. It is imaginable that skin could randomly grow between the arm and the torso, and that such could feasibly happen to an animal which would gain advantage from such. However, it is extremely improbable. The best example to demonstrate this improbability is humans, pigs, cows, dogs, and cats. There exist more humans alive today than all humans ever throughout history combined together. Cows, pigs, dogs, and cats also exist now in greater numbers than ever imaginable. Yet, there does not currently exist a single one of these animals or a person who has experienced the mutation of skin growing between their arms and torso.

Above is used to clarify that although there would be little to no benefit for such skin to grow for most animals, the fact that the occurrence of such is supposedly a random mutation means that its randomness of occurring should be equal to all animals. Obviously, it would be advantageous to occur in an animal that could benefit from it, but its probability of occurring to such animal is equal to the probability of it occurring to any other animal. At the present time, it has not presented itself as a mutation to any animal known. Therefore, because of the large diversity of evolution origins from different species of animals that have wings for flight, it is not reasonable that wings were the result of benefitting from a random mutation. The mathematical odds against it are too great.

The next major hurdle is gender. Although gender would tend to promote diversity in species, it reduces the ability for a favored trait to be passed on. If an animal is born with a mutation that favors its existence, asexual reproduction would be advantageous in its ability to reproduce the trait in the greatest numbers, and also to do so without “watering it down” by the partner. Another clear disadvantage to gender is the endangerment of the ability to accomplish reproduction at all, being there may arise circumstance where only one of the gender is available. Gender seems to be the less logical approach for evolution to manage reproduction, yet; it is the dominant and almost pervasive means for life as we know it now and in the past.

The great diversity of life is another conundrum difficult to resolve. A primary foundation of evolution is that no two life forms that compete for the same resources can continue to exist in the same ecosystem. Eventually one or the other will have an advantage that will resolve to it being the only one to survive. Superior animals evolve over time to fill the specific needs within the niches of an ecosystem. By the logic of evolution, we should see very little diversity of life, but should instead see “super” life forms that are highly adaptable and are maximized for their survival and to fill their needed niche of the ecosystem.

Death by old age is the last hurdle to be discussed with reference to current life forms. If evolution followed a logical path, it would favor longevity of natural life span for superior animals, to best ensure they propagate the most. The elimination of death by natural cause would seem to be a tremendous advantage that evolution should have borne out, but has not done so anywhere. If there were no natural death, the strongest would continue to produce offspring with the same traits that made them strong. After many generations of offspring, each in theory becoming stronger, the original animal would become more vulnerable to being killed, thus allowing the cycle of life to be similar to what we have.


PAST LIFE FORMS – DINOSAURS:

After discussing hurdles that exist with life as we know it and see it today, there remains a hurdle about past life forms that is insurmountable, the supposed great size of dinosaurs, specifically the herbivores such as the Brontosaurus. There are 3 main topics that cannot be reconciled:

1) There does not seem to be an evolutionary advantage to their great size. a) Plant life was prolific, at the surface levels and atop the tall trees. They ate plants, and could obtain an equal and most probably greater supply of them at ground levels or near ground levels than would be available up high atop the trees. b) The mean temperature was warmer than today’s temperatures, and thus would drive towards leaner and smaller animals. In general, larger animals are driven to their size for the purpose of providing protective layers of fat to cover them and keep them warm. c) With the supposed existence of large meat eating predators such as Tyrannosaurus Rex, animals that were large and slow moving would be at a distinct disadvantage. The only way to reconcile large size to be an advantage would be if it were the case that animals like the T-Rex could “nibble” on the Brontosaurus, and their great size allowed for healing, thus; they were a walking snack bar. I mention this with humor, as it is wildly unrealistic. 2) Using the assumption they used their evolved large size to mostly eat from the top parts of trees, it does not seem possible for there to be enough of a food supply to sustain them. a) Brontosaurus supposedly weighed 40 tons or 80,000 pounds. This would resolve to a diet of minimum 1,400 pounds each day. b) The tops of trees contain leaves and the thinnest branches, and therefore greater than 90% of the weight of the tree is contained at lower levels than would be affected by Brontosaurus. With large trees of 4 foot diameter, the tops of each tree would equal approximately 400 pounds. Each Brontosaurus would consume a minimum of 3½ trees daily. c) Such trees of practical worth to the evolution design of the Brontosaurus and its long neck would take in excess of 10 years to reach their size, even under the most optimal growing conditions. 3) Because of their large size, they ultimately would bring about their own demise. Their size and elongated tail require a lot of room cleared away when they are standing still and eating. When they walked, they would undoubtedly be knocking over many trees. This can be seen with elephants today, which weigh only 1/5 (20%) what the Brontosaurus supposedly weighed and their size. As elephants walk through the forest, they knock over many large trees, which ultimately is good because it clears the forest to allow the lower vegetation to flourish. If an animal the size of Brontosaurus would try to walk through a forest, it would end up knocking over almost every tree which would be optimal for their height. This again resolves to a disadvantage, and seemingly against the design of evolution.

When discussing this subject with scientists and dinosaur “experts”, the focus of the conversation seems to shift to become what is potentially possible, taking on the tone of “if many improbable conditions were all true, then it’s potentially possible to sustain a small population of Brontosaurus for a relatively brief period of time.” However, this line of thought misses the mark by not addressing how or why evolution would drive such a creature to exist? Looking at this question brings clear to mind that evolution could not and would not have driven such an animal to be in existence.

CONCLUSION:

We have identified the logic used by the theory of evolution to demonstrate proof it to. This logic being that life can modify its physical attributes to adapt to its surroundings, and such modifications can occur through passive and small changes over a long period of time, or instantly through random mutations which are favorable to survival.

We have identified vision as a highly desirable trait for most all animals, and that the ability to use vision to see in all directions at the same time holds a distinct advantage when compared to having two eyes that have limited peripheral scope. We have also affirmed evolution to not have accomplished such for any animal, despite supposedly accomplishing far more difficult to imagine results, such as the creation of wings for flight.

We have identified that logic favors asexual propagation of a species to best allow it to evolve to a higher level, yet such is virtually nonexistent in our world of life forms.

We know that the objective of evolution is to produce the strongest and most able forms of each life form to be passed onto future generations to allow them a greater probability of survival and propagation.

We know that death by natural cause is in direct defiance of the logical objective of evolution. It is with interest that we can note death by natural cause is also in direct conflict with life itself, which has as its objective to replicate and sustain itself.

And we also have a theory about animals that existed in the past, but that logic cannot reconcile to the size and shape and function they could have played within any ecosystem that currently exists or has existed on planet earth.

We have identified key factors that are not able to be answered in any manner by the theory of evolution. They are able to be answered by a different manner, some form of divine intervention. This could take form in many possible ways, to include but not be limited to: 1) The existence of a single and omnipotent being that created all and has always existed and will always continue to exist, with consciousness. 2) The existence of a “Life Energy Force” which would have created our world for its purpose, and not the reverse. This supposition is the inverse of current scientific theory in that it postulates life came first, and create the physical world we see before us to enable its existence as a physical form. Current scientific theory holds that the world was created by happen chance through a “Big Bang” and that life is a random and sporadic consequence of such. 3) By some means, an act of “panspermia” occurring and recurring to litter the earth with life from an alternate source outside of earth. This could resolve to be anything including intelligent alien life forms intentionally “seeding” the earth with life.

Our conclusion is not that evolution doesn't occur. Common logic dictates that it occurs to some extent. The conclusion that can be drawn from above is that evolution alone is not a logical model to resolve life to be what it currently is. If life were to be formed from electrical charges producing a repetitive chemical reaction which continued to repeat and expand, and thus the definition of life, and the only means by which it modified from its original complexity was through the process of evolution, then the end result would be life much different than what exists on our planet.

We can’t state with scientific conviction the true origin of life on earth. What can be confirmed is that its present state is NOT consistent with what evolution of life over 4.5 billion years would resolve to. What can also be said is the book we call “The Bible” is a book well written and one that holds much insight to the meaning of life in other areas. We can choose to accept it or not to accept it. It holds an explanation to the origin of life, and its explanation is more plausible, by using scientific means, than is the theory of evolution. It takes a great leap of faith to believe its explanation of life and the meaning of life. And, that faith is the very foundation of the book, to have faith in the Lord.

[Wooden shoe]

Hello Data.

A few observations. Very few people will bother to read such a long opening post, where all you try to do is knock evolution, but in the final paragraph you show your true intention which is to promote your belief. You offer no proof for your belief except to offer it as the alternative to evolution, you choose the Abrahamic version of creationism while there are many other beliefs with a different source. Perhaps you should know that the author of genesis took a much older creation story, which had a different deity, and adapted it for his story. The reality is that we will never know for sure how this universe or life began, but please do not confuse science and belief.

Regards, John.

[Data]

The closing reference is not to "promote my beliefs". In contrast, it is an explanation to the way life exists today that is more plausible than is the theory of evolution. If evolution were to run as a computer program, life would look nothing like what we see at present. But, if there were some form of intervention, be it extraterrestrial or Divine or whether the power of thought drives evolution (i.e. ... a life form "thinks" and desires a need for evolutionary advancement, and the mere "thought" becomes the initiating factor), if there were to be any of these interventions, then the theory becomes plausible. I do believe in God, and to a great extent believe the words of the Bible; regardless of their origin, they are wise words written by very inspired and wise men (and probably women also).

So, the conclusion is not Judeo-Christian beliefs, ... the conclusion is that evolution could not have been the only factor to drive life to become what we see today. There MUST have been an additional input variable. It is your choice to decide what that variable might be.

[Gene16180]

Just a few points.

It becomes obvious that a great advantage in sight would be the ability to see all around. One possible design would be the evolution of a single eye that encircles the entire head, enabling sight from all directions and thus eliminating surprise attacks from behind.

Do you realize we need two eyes in order to see in depth?

The next item of difficulty to reconcile is flight… In order for an animal with appendages to take flight with wings evolved, it would have to grow skin that attaches between its arm appendages and its upper body torso…

Research suggests that wings first evolved not for flight, nor from attempts at flight, but rather for insulation.



On a separate note, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution should work. Firstly, there is a lot of bad design and that is precisely what we would expect from an impersonal force like natural selection having to expand upon and readapt preexisting structure for new function. There are a lot of examples of bad design – the laryngeal nerve in the giraffe, the human retina with its subsequent blind spot, our genitalia - “a recreation complex in the middle of a sewage facility”. My favorite example is that humans eat, breath, drink, talk and do a few other things through the same hole. This ensures that some percentage of people are going to choke to death every year. Why don’t we have several holes like whales or dolphins? Asking why evolution did this and not that is often misguided.

Finally, your argument for a designer is based on gaps in your knowledge. You look at evolution, you encounter mysteries and complexities that you do not understand, and you subsequently invoke some higher power (presumably even more mysterious and complex) as an explanation. In your case, I think a good textbook can address these mysteries, but even if it couldn’t, what you’re doing is problematic for several reasons.

1. It is hubris to assume that just because we currently lack a natural explanation, therefor there is no natural explanation. 2. Invoking supernatural entities has no explanatory power, it only provides the illusion of knowledge and creates more mysteries without actually solving the ones it was invoked to explain.

[Data]

Well noted, ... so, ... what then is the explanation why evolution has "failed" with such extreme? Evolution has failed to accomplish what it's supposed purpose is. The supposed purpose of evolution is to produce a superior being to most effectively fill the need within an ecosystem. In contrast, life exists with many upon many "bad designs". If evolution was alone responsible for the result of life as it exists today, then it should have created life to be similar to the described above. However, after almost 4.5 BILLION years, it seemingly is a dismal failure to accomplish what it's purpose is.

[Gene16180]

Well, no… you see, there is no purpose. You’re speaking of evolution as if it were a conscious agent with specific goals. From a scientific standpoint it is merely natural processes acting on matter. Furthermore, evolution is a rather broad term that encompasses a number of specific processes – from environment to molecules. The organisms which are best suited to survive in a given environment are the ones that survive – that statement is redundantly true. There is no end goal here, there is no perfection. As the Red Queen hypothesis states: “we run as fast as we can just to keep our place”. In the long term, it’s really not about “perfection” or “dominance” but rather about having the bare minimum to survive another day. It also doesn’t make sense to speak of superiority – an organism may be well adapted to one environment and thus appear “superior”, or even "perfect" in the context of some niche. However, strength can quickly become a weakness if the environment changes – and given enough time it always does.

[Data]

Although events are random, systems exist with intent and purpose. If we are to accept that evolution is the exclusive source responsible for birds and other animals of flight, and is also the sole and only source responsible for all life as it exists today, then we must accept that evolution is a "system" with intent and purpose. The entire premise of the "Evolution Theory" is that it is driven to accomplish a purpose.

All theoretical explanations of evolution are modeled on a design with intent and purpose. We can not dismiss such. Therefore, we must reconcile such. And, ... that is where the evolution model (program) fails. We can only reconcile such by introducing some variable/intervention, be it extraterrestrial or Divine or the power of thought. However, unless we introduce such, the "program" is not possible to resolve to its current state.

It's pure and simple logic, ... 1 + 2 = 3. If the answer is different than "3", then some variable must be changing the formula. The "system" of evolution should bear out as described in my original post, ... an answer of "3". It has failed to do this. Some factor or "variable" must be influencing it. We are not saying evolution doesn't occur, ... what we are saying is that it cannot possibly be the only factor for life to be as it exists.

After 4.5 BILLION years, the answer is not "3". Unless you can definitely identify the "missing variable", our argument must default to the logic of "If you've eliminated all other possibilities, ... whatever remains must be the truth". The "whatever remains" in this case is the introduction of "some form of intervention", be it extraterrestrial or Divine or the power of thought.

[Gene16180]

Again, you’re anthropomorphizing nature. The phenomena which conspire to drive evolutionary change – heredity, mutations, limited resources, ect have no more purpose then mountains or rain clouds. When scientists use words like purpose in reference to natural phenomena they are doing so metaphorically to describe the way some natural system behaves.

Tell me again how evolution is “supposed to bear out”? What exactly does “3” represent in this case?

[Data]

This introductory sentence is only in place because I keep receiving the error message, "Your post does not appear to even be one full, gramatically correct sentence. Please elaborate. If you feel this message is in error, please contact Scott. You must click on Preview before you can Submit"

How ironic! For debug purpose to the "Philosophy Forum" team, the word "grammatically" is misspelled and should have two "m"s.

My reply to "Gene16180":

The reference to 3 =

1 + 2 + (extraterrestrial or Divine Intervention or the power of thought)

[Gene16180]

Again, I'm not clear on what the explanatory gap is that requires the invoking of this mysterious "3rd variable". I think you'll find that the "irreconcilable details" that you mention in the OP have explanations. But even if they didn't, this line of reasoning only obfuscates the matter. There was a time when nothing in nature made any sense without reference to some supernatural force or deity. Where would we be now had that always been our outlook?

[Dolphin42]

Data:

As Gene16180 points out in detail, one major root of your problem seems to be the misconception that evolution has a purpose and the judgement of its accuracy via that misconception. Purpose implies forward planning and it's clear from examination of the natural world that it constantly suffers from a lack of forward planning.

You give the example of a feature, the 360 degree eye, that you regard as a good design idea that evolution ought to have come up with. But this is put forward by you from the point of viewing of planning what would be good for survival. The better question is: How and why would a 360 degree eye evolve such that each step was beneficial?

In practice, what has evolved, at least in the example of mammals, is, in a sense, a 360 degree eye, but not all of it in the same species! Some (predators) tend to look forward and have good binocular vision. Others (prey) tend to have a wider field of vision but not binocular. Different types of vision have evolved because they're conducive to survival in different circumstances. Predator species don't need to be able to see behind them as much as prey species do so there is little evolutionary pressure to do so.

You say this:

The entire premise of the "Evolution Theory" is that it is driven to accomplish a purpose.

and this:

All theoretical explanations of evolution are modeled on a design with intent and purpose.

What, in your view, do these theories say is the intent and purpose? "Survival of the fittest" is not an intention. It is a description, and an almost tautological one at that. Because the term "fittest" in this context simply means "most likely to survive in the current environment". So it really means: "survival of those most likely to survive."

You could argue that it's not a very enlightening description but I think that only makes it even harder to argue that it contains any mention of purpose!

---

A few more specific points:

Yet, there does not currently exist a single one of these animals or a person who has experienced the mutation of skin growing between their arms and torso.

I bet if you searched the internet, or certain TV channels, you'd find one!

Another clear disadvantage to gender is the endangerment of the ability to accomplish reproduction at all, being there may arise circumstance where only one of the gender is available.

This is also an advantage as it allows for the very powerful mechanism of sexual selection. Mates can be chosen specifically for the characteristics that tend to improve their ability to reproduce and protect offspring.

A primary foundation of evolution is that no two life forms that compete for the same resources can continue to exist in the same ecosystem.

That would only be true if they were competing for precisely the same resources and mutated in precisely the same ways. In practice, they would tend to evolve differently to exploit slightly different niches. Hence the diversity.

If evolution followed a logical path, it would favor longevity of natural life span for superior animals, to best ensure they propagate the most. The elimination of death by natural cause would seem to be a tremendous advantage that evolution should have borne out, but has not done so anywhere.

I see no reason for there to be any evolutionary pressure towards immortality of the individual. Only towards immortality of the genes. This is what reproduction effectively achieves.

There does not seem to be an evolutionary advantage to their [dinosaurs'] great size.

One thing you didn't mention is the fact that large size, though making it harder to run away from predators, can make it almost impossible for the predators to bring down the prey. So, for example, modern day adult elephants are virtually free from predators, apart from humans.

...However, this line of thought misses the mark by not addressing how or why evolution would drive such a creature to exist? Looking at this question brings clear to mind that evolution could not and would not have driven such an animal to be in existence.

Evolution, via random mutation, constantly sends out small "feelers" in almost all directions. The thing which causes the concept of "evolutionary pressure", in once direction but not another, is death, hardship, resource limitations and competition. If there is little "resistance" to the movement in a given direction, then life will diversify in that direction with correspondingly less "pressure".

[Data]

I'm thinking that the word "purpose" is being taken in context to mean the the process of evolution has "thought". My bad if that's how my wording is interpreted. The intended meaning was that it behaves similar to a computer program. Our entire world is fundamentally a computer program that relies upon "If, ... Then" responses to the rules that govern it. My claim is that evolution would not play out to produce life as it currently exists were it the case that it uses only the "If, ... Then" rules which define it.

A theory is a logical argument that steps through its logic to attempt to reach an inescapable conclusion. If the conclusion is proven as inescapable, then the theory is upgraded to the status of proven fact. With evolution, if you follow all the "If, ... Then" rules that define it, the rules themselves disprove it, requiring the introduction of an additional factor. That factor can be whatever you conceive it to be that would resolve the disparity. My claim is not to prove what the missing factor is, but only to identify that such a factor is needed to complete the proof.

[Dolphin42]

Data:

Sorry, I just added a whole load more to my previous post a second before you added your latest one, just to confuse things!

I'm not sure about your analogy with "If...Then" statements in computer programs. I know there are certain parallels between genetic code and computer code. Is that what you're referring to? Or are you referring to the rules of the theory of evolution?

In your second paragraph, I don't agree entirely with your description of a theory. Theories don't create inescapable conclusions. They propose patterns in nature and use them to predict future observations. They can never be proved conclusively true. But you're right that a theory can be disproved by making an observation which contradicts the theory's predictions. I don't think you've yet shown one in the case of the TOE.

[Data]

Theories don't create inescapable conclusions. They propose patterns in nature and use them to predict future observations. They can never be proved conclusively true.

A long time ago, when I was just a boy, most people thought the sun circled the earth and the earth was the center of everything (OK, ... maybe a little earlier than when I was a child). Then, this crazy "theory" was proposed that the earth was not in fact the center but was in fact only one of many objects that encircled the sun, and that some of these objects had objects circling them, like the earth's moon. This "theory" was based on mathematical observations, but there was no proof, because no person could see the picture from outside the solar system and watch it happen.

Eventually, technology enabled proof to become an "inescapable conclusion" that for fact the sun was the center of our solar system, and the earth encircled it and rotated on an axis to present the illusion while on earth's surface that the sun was encircling it.

Thus we first have a crazy notion that conflicts with every reasonable observation by the naked eye alone while on the surface of the earth. Then we have conjecture based on a single observation through a magnifying device (telescope) to confirm that objects seen at a great distance move in a pattern that would be inconsistent with the earth being the center of everything (the moons of Jupiter). This conjecture raised to the level of theory with further observations and comparisons using mathematics. Finally, upon the ability to make observation that would become irrefutable, the theory raised to the level of "proven fact".

[Dukedroklar]

Well written and I agree somewhat.

The point of the eye being 360 as a logical result of evolution does not take into account the limits of the brain. Processing vision consumes a large portion of our brains limited capacity. Even with just two eyes mainly focused in a 45 degree field the brain takes many shortcuts to conserve resources. It's the fundamentals of why magicians and slight of hand works. We could probably have 360 fuzzy vision or 45 degree clearer vision but not both for a creature to develop other abilities that also consume large cycles of our brains capacity. I see it as a trade off to achieve a more well rounded creature.

I do agree that there is something major missing in the theory of evolution. The wing developing is one that I myself have used to make this point. I consider it the best example of a finished product that has a clear advantage but the intermediate stages would be more of a disadvantage and therefore should not have ever reached the final advantageous stage.

Personally I consider evolution as simply the incomplete study of the mechanism of gods creation. I also think that it is possible that life itself drives it's own evolutionary path more than evolution theory grants it. I think this is likely caused by stress from environmental sources. Especially the stress of imminent extinction.

There isn't much study in this area but there was one I read about fruit flies that could be induced to have more birth defects and mutations when under stress. My knowledge of biology is not deep enough to know the plausibility of this but is it not possible that cancer, tumors etc could be an attempt by organisms to change? Randomly throwing out mutations in the hopes of adapting to whatever is generating the stress.