Arguments against evolution

[rossum]

Part 2 of 2

1. When fossils are found for example, they often show signs of stress. For fossils to form at all, they need rapid burial.

Yes. They are dead, and dying is usually stressful. Rapid burial preserves the bones from scavengers. How is this a problem for evolution? Remember that some fossils are rapidly buried in wind blown sand - a bit unusual during a flood.

1. The convenience of the earth’s heavy elements and abundance of metals etc. in a universe which is 99% hydrogen and helium, just waiting for industrial man to come along and make use of them. The same comment could be made about oil, coal and uranium deposits, so conveniently laid down for our later use.

They were there first, we just evolved to make use of what was available. You remind me of the apocryphal medieval monk who observed that God was good because he had conveniently placed a river through the middle of large cities.

1. The consistency of genetic structure. The same chemical reactions apparently have proven to be stable enough to last for millions of years, all by chance.

Not by chance but by chemistry. If it wasn’t stable then it would have disappeared. Only stable compounds will survive that long.

1. The fact DNA is an information code. And information means intelligence, both from the source of origin and at the receiving end, if it is to be understood and interpreted.

DNA is a chemical which matches with RNA. RNA is a chemical which matches with amino acids. Amino acids are chemicals which link together in chains to form proteins. Where is the intelligence?

1. The argument is about God in the end. Nobody gets excited about aerodynamics, robotics, artificial intelligence, pharmaceutical research or tries to deny God using them. But evolution is the very significant exception.

People use the Inquisition to argue against God. Does that mean that the Inquisition never existed? Evolution is good science, which some people put to uses outside science.

1. The fact that protein and DNA, both advanced biological chemicals, require mutual compatibility to even exist. One cannot exist without the other in living creatures.

Which is precisely why modern abiogenesis studies show that the very earliest living, and near living, organisms did not use the DNA/protein system but used an RNA only system. Google for “RNA World”.

1. The most basic living things, viruses, always require a more advanced host to survive.

And your evidence that the first living organism was a virus is?

1. The uselessness of half a wing or half a leg in the interests of survival. It’s all or nothing.

Half a wing can be used for gliding, enhanced heat exchange, for sexual display to a potential mate, to frighten away a predator etc. Just because it cannot be used for powered flight does not mean that it is useless.

1. The colossal differences between warm blooded and cold blooded creatures, such that it is hard to see how birds supposedly evolved on multiple fronts simultaneously from dinosaurs for example.

See the Synapsid (cold blooded) to mammal (warm blooded) transition I gave before. At least some Dinosaurs were probably warm blooded.

1. For a living creature to function, there is a minimum complexity of design, which is in fact extremely high.

The word “design” is incorrect, you are assuming your conclusion. There is indeed a minimum complexity but as far as we can tell, that complexity is within reach of chemistry given a planet sized test tube and a few million years.

They’re some of the arguments.

Your technique is known as the “Gish Gallop”. Throw out a lot of arguments, hoping that some will hit. If you want a serious discussion then drop all the irrelevant and incorrect arguments and stick with a few where you think you can make a good case.

rossum

 

[redhen]

errr… Archaeopteryx?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

Ambulocetus
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus

Elginerpeton
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elginerpeton

They’re technical name is “transitional fossils”. Shall I go on???

My favourite, meet Tiktaalik roseae tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/

 

[Sideline]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibriumEldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin was virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.

I caught from your later posts that you do not understand the word stasis, and that you think this is “gobbledygook” hypothesis.

Why would you try to use an argument you don’t understand? Let me explain the quote that you used means to you.

Gould is saying that the changes in the fossil record could not have come about at a uniformly gradual rate. Instead, there were periods in which they changed more, and periods where they changed very little (stasis, by the way).

He is saying that it isn’t the case that every new generation is 0.0002% of a new species, and the generation after that is another 0.0002% of that change. Rather there are starts and stops. Species that become well adapted to there environment are relatively stable (in stasis) and that most of the change happens in species that are on the outskirts of the most suitable environment. Those on the outskirts will change more quickly (like over periods of thousands of years) and eventually become genetically isolated from the parent species.

To use Richard Dawkins’ analogy, imagine the Isrealites taking 40 years to cross the desert. Either they would have needed to travel less than a metre a day (extreme gradualism). Or they went faster at some times, and rested at others.

Not really gobbledygook when you understand it, is it?

 

[Sideline]

Its a very short list there should be millions of these transitional skeletons around… where are they?

If you are right, there shouldn’t be any.

 

[edwest2]

I’m a bit of a creationist at heart, although at times I tend to sit on the fence. Some of the main arguments I’ve seen against evolution are -

1. Missing transitional species. There’s not many, really.
2. No explanation for the origin of life, or the fantastic metabolic machinery in even the most basic cell. There is just no possibility whatsoever that this happened by accident.
3. The so-called “Cambrian Explosion of Life” when all phyla suddenly appeared in the fossil record, including vertebrates.
4. The massive deposits of fossils in many places which indicate sudden burial (eg. a flood).
5. Observed short term formation of coal after local catastrophic events eg. Mt. St. Helens.
6. Other aging problems eg. Moon dust (or the lack of it), the continuing existence of comets, the earth’s magnetic field decay, discrepancies in carbon dating, oil remaining under high pressure without percolating into surrounding rock, aging of stars.
7. Genetic decay at observed rates should have led to a very weak strain of human if we’re as old as claimed.
8. Very limited fossil remains to point to human evolution.
9. Sudden emergence of advanced civilisations with multiple skills - art, law, literature, philosophy, architecture, building, military skills.
10. Reality of humans all over the earth speaking different languages, yet closely related genetically. When European explorers “discovered” the earth, humans were already almost everywhere.
11. When fossils are found for example, they often show signs of stress. For fossils to form at all, they need rapid burial.
12. The convenience of the earth’s heavy elements and abundance of metals etc. in a universe which is 99% hydrogen and helium, just waiting for industrial man to come along and make use of them. The same comment could be made about oil, coal and uranium deposits, so conveniently laid down for our later use.
13. The consistency of genetic structure. The same chemical reactions apparently have proven to be stable enough to last for millions of years, all by chance.
14. The fact DNA is an information code. And information means intelligence, both from the source of origin and at the receiving end, if it is to be understood and interpreted.
15. The argument is about God in the end. Nobody gets excited about aerodynamics, robotics, artificial intelligence, pharmaceutical research or tries to deny God using them. But evolution is the very significant exception.
16. The fact that protein and DNA, both advanced biological chemicals, require mutual compatibility to even exist. One cannot exist without the other in living creatures.
17. The most basic living things, viruses, always require a more advanced host to survive.
18. The uselessness of half a wing or half a leg in the interests of survival. It’s all or nothing.
19. The colossal differences between warm blooded and cold blooded creatures, such that it is hard to see how birds supposedly evolved on multiple fronts simultaneously from dinosaurs for example.
20. For a living creature to function, there is a minimum complexity of design, which is in fact extremely high.

They’re some of the arguments.

Minimum complexity is one good argument. While ultra-orthox evolutionists claim that the origin of life and the process of evoltion are two separate things they are not. Also, a worldview bias exists for purely natural (non-God) explanations. In fact, there is clear evidence that eternal vigilance is being maintained here, and at other Christian sites, to make sure that any other idea for the development of life is shot down and buried under numerous comments.

Right now, the belief that must be promoted at all costs is that chemicals turned into life one day. That is actually an anti-science idea since life cannot be spontaneously generated. At present, people are smply told, Trust us. Just make it a “given.”

The information in the cell is specific, ordered and highly complex. It does amount to instructions for making something. Instructions that have these characteristics only come from an intelligence. I know a programmer who told me about having to hunt for an error in hundreds of lines of code. Things don’t work other than how they are programmed.

The common seal walks on its flippers. I’m sure that if it were painful it would not do it. However, the seal is fully functional as is.

I saw a detailed close-up photo of an insect trapped in amber. It had multiple legs and wings. It was rather sophisticated for something supposedly millions of years old.

Intelligent Design makes sense and it relies only on observation. The nanomachinery in the cell is, in fact, nanomachinery. Which is not the same as saying this is too complex to appear on its own. This observation of specified complexity is in line with what we’ve accomplished with mechanical things and computers. We’ve made small, complex things as well. We know we cannot get such things from natural processes. Archaeologists separate tools from rock and debris all the time. If their observations are regarded as accurate then why not ID?

One way evolutionists attempt to debunk irreducible complexity is to claim that somehow, a part was floating around and attached itself to perform some useful function. Even disregarding the probability of that actually happening, what happens when the cell wants to divide? The instructions for building this “add on” part are not in its genetic library. This means the cell divides, divides and divides and the new part is never copied.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Enderhall]

The basic response to “Evolution” is actually found in science its self. Evolution was an idea concocted during a very early era of biological science.

Once we learned about genetics and DNA we are able to easily explain away the whole theory.

Miro-evolution vs Macro-evolution

Miro-evo is proven fact, any organism has the ability to evolve with in its own species. This is the degradation of DNA or the expression of genes that already existed brought out by selective breeding. This is why we have so many types of dogs, horses, cows ect.

Note: These new breeds of animals are created by corrupting the original DNA.

Macro-evo is biologically impossible. New DNA strands can NOT be introduced into an organism through breeding. We know this and we have actually learned how to artificially add DNA and have genetically engineered many foods and even animals. The ability to evolve from one species to another is a scientific impossibility.

Note: In labs they have bacteria cultures that have gone through MILLIONS of generations more than animals have had the opportunity to in the existence of the earth with out any Macro-evolution ever accruing.

 

[Techno2000]

I caught from your later posts that you do not understand the word stasis, and that you think this is “gobbledygook” hypothesis.

Why would you try to use an argument you don’t understand? Let me explain the quote that you used means to you.

Gould is saying that the changes in the fossil record could not have come about at a uniformly gradual rate. Instead, there were periods in which they changed more, and periods where they changed very little (stasis, by the way).

He is saying that it isn’t the case that every new generation is 0.0002% of a new species, and the generation after that is another 0.0002% of that change. Rather there are starts and stops. Species that become well adapted to there environment are relatively stable (in stasis) and that most of the change happens in species that are on the outskirts of the most suitable environment. Those on the outskirts will change more quickly (like over periods of thousands of years) and eventually become genetically isolated from the parent species.

To use Richard Dawkins’ analogy, imagine the Isrealites taking 40 years to cross the desert. Either they would have needed to travel less than a metre a day (extreme gradualism). Or they went faster at some times, and rested at others.

Not really gobbledygook when you understand it, is it?

So stasis means that a animal can morph so fast into something else that it leaves no skeletons behind ?

 

[rossum]

The basic response to “Evolution” is actually found in science its self. Evolution was an idea concocted during a very early era of biological science.

Once we learned about genetics and DNA we are able to easily explain away the whole theory.

Hardly “explain away”, more like “explain in more detail”. All of the evidence from DNA has supported evolution, common descent and so forth.

Mi[c]ro-evo is proven fact, any organism has the ability to evolve with in its own species.

We are agreed, that is the definition of microevolution - evolution within a species.

This is the degradation of DNA or the expression of genes that already existed brought out by selective breeding. This is why we have so many types of dogs, horses, cows ect.

Here we disagree. The word “degredation” is wrong. I will accept “change” in its place. Evolution is the process of change in DNA.

Note: These new breeds of animals are created by corrupting the original DNA.

Again with the emotive words. Forget “corrupting” and insert “changing”. You appear to be using essentialist thinking, which is wrong in this case.

Macro-evo is biologically impossible. New DNA strands can NOT be introduced into an organism through breeding.

Utterly false. Your creationist sources are lying to you as they so often do. Look up “sexual reproduction”, “gene duplication” and “chromosome duplication” for examples of extra DNA being introduced into an organism. Also go and learn how retro-viruses work by adding their own genetic material into the DNA of their hosts, not breeding but yet another way of adding new DNA into an organism.

We know this and we have actually learned how to artificially add DNA and have genetically engineered many foods and even animals. The ability to evolve from one species to another is a scientific impossibility.

Again, you are being lied to by creationist sources. We have observed speciation both in the wild and in the laboratory. Even Answers in Genesis accepts that new species can form:Instead, it is real, observed evidence that such (downhill) adaptive formation of several species from the one created kind can easily take place in a few centuries. It doesn’t need millions of years.

Source: 1(4) 1999Ex Nihilo
If AiG accept that new species can form then you will have difficulty convincing the rest of us that such a thing is impossible.

rossum

 

[Techno2000]

Every animal on God’s Green Earth is perfect in every way right now…so has evolution stopped , if not what animal is in the process of Morphing into something else ?

 

[rossum]

Every animal on God’s Green Earth is perfect in every way right now…

Nope. I cannot hold my breath for as long as a dolphin, so I am less perfect than a dolphin.

so has evolution stopped

No. As long as there is life and a changing environment there will be evolution.

if not what animal is in the process of Morphing into something else ?

All species are changing, though at different speeds. Here is an example of a change in humans: A Rare Protein Mutation Offers New Hope For Heart Disease Patients. That is just one example of the human genome evolving.

rossum

 

[Techno2000]

Nope. I cannot hold my breath for as long as a dolphin, so I am less perfect than a dolphin.

No. As long as there is life and a changing environment there will be evolution.

All species are changing, though at different speeds. Here is an example of a change in humans: A Rare Protein Mutation Offers New Hope For Heart Disease Patients. That is just one example of the human genome evolving.

rossum

All you can come up with is some “Rare Protein”…dolphin are dolphin and Men are Men maybe you are to going to grow wings too, and become even more perfect and after that a set of gills so you wont have to hold your breath.

 

[liquidpele]

All you can come up with is some “Rare Protein”…dolphin are dolphin and Men are Men maybe you are to going to grow wings too, and become even more perfect and after that a set of gills so you wont have to hold your breath.

Why the sarcasm?
Are you actually interested in the topic, or are you only interested in confirming what you already want to believe? If you really want to understand what evolution is, you can ask and we’ll be glad to answer any questions you have. I personally have no desire to get into a childish argument like what some other creationists here seem to feed off of though, so if you only want to try and refute evolution with what seems to be a completely ignorant understanding of the subject then just specify this and we can all just go our separate ways.

 

[buffalo]

Saltations

The DNA Code

First cells - very complex

Nano-machinery in cells

Signature in the Cell

 

[Techno2000]

Why the sarcasm?
Are you actually interested in the topic, or are you only interested in confirming what you already want to believe? If you really want to understand what evolution is, you can ask and we’ll be glad to answer any questions you have. I personally have no desire to get into a childish argument like what some other creationists here seem to feed off of though, so if you only want to try and refute evolution with what seems to be a completely ignorant understanding of the subject then just specify this and we can all just go our separate ways.

Ok I’m sorry for being childish… what animals are in the process of Morphing into something else right now… please be specific.

 

[buffalo]

***Darwin’s Dilemma ***explores one of the great mysteries in the history of life: The geologically-sudden appearance of dozens of major complex animal types in the fossil record without any trace of the gradual transitional steps Charles Darwin had predicted. Frequently described as “the Cambrian Explosion,” the development of these new animal types required a massive increase in genetic information. “The big question that the Cambrian Explosion poses is where does all that new information come from?”

 

[liquidpele]

Ok I’m sorry for being childish… what animals are in the process of Morphing into something else right now… please be specific.

Okay, I’m still not sure if you are joking or not. By “morphing” do you mean an animal actually changing itself within it’s own lifetime? If so, that is pretty much the opposite of what evolution is about, and you need to watch this:

youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8

Once you are done with that, come back and ask any other questions you have. If that’s not what you meant, please be a little more specific in what you’re interested in knowing.

 

[Techno2000]

Okay, I’m still not sure if you are joking or not. By “morphing” do you mean an animal actually changing itself within it’s own lifetime? If so, that is pretty much the opposite of what evolution is about, and you need to watch this:

youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8

Once you are done with that, come back and ask any other questions you have. If that’s not what you meant, please be a little more specific in what you’re interested in knowing.

What I mean is… why is there no animals waking around right now that are in the process of evolving into a new animal .

 

[buffalo]

Here is a good primer on ID:

A Scientific History – and Philosophical Defense – of the Theory of Intelligent Design

 

[liquidpele]

What I mean is… why is there no animals waking around right now that are in the process of evolving into a new animal .

The answer is that they ALL are. And if you live for 100,000 years you’ll see some of them actually finish the process.

One thing you have the remember is that what makes a “new animal” is simply a label applied by humans. Where do you draw the line? When they change their color? Get longer legs? When cross breeding makes sterile or disabled offspring? When they can no longer cross breed at all?

Another thing to remember is that the population cycle and lifespan of a species also contributes a lot to the speed at which it can evolve. Viruses and bacteria evolve faster than fruit flies, which are faster than mice, which are faster than elephants. This is why a lot of the major evolution studies deal with very simple animals, because we’re able to actually witness things happening within a reasonable time (or even within a lifetime).

I hope you don’t think I’m dodging the question, it’s just that I think you may have unreasonable expectations regarding what you expect to “see” here. It would be like being a detective and asking to see an actual re-enactment at the crime scene to believe a crime had taken place.

Anyway, there is a list of speciation that has been compiled here if you really want to look through the details:
talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
life.illinois.edu/bio100/lectures/s07lects/25s07-macro.html#Example
cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/hybrids.jpg
holysmoke.org/cretins/speci.htm

 

[Touchstone]

What I mean is… why is there no animals waking around right now that are in the process of evolving into a new animal .

Each individual – every individual – is a transitional form between its parent and any offspring it may have. So, you, as an individual, are not undergoing genetic variation – your DNA stays the same from your conception forward, but you are a combination of your parents genes with some small amount of variation all your own.

So you, as you, are doing your part as part of population in nudging the evolution just a little bit farther down the time line. If you have or will have kids, you are a subtle transitional form toward the evolutionary future of humanity.

-TS