Arguments against evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Techno2000

Guest
Ok what some of the KEY points that are used to shoot down the theory of evolution… I’m not a believer of it.
 
Techno2000 said:
Ok what some of the KEY points that are used to shoot down the theory of evolution… I’m not a believer of it.
Click to expand...
If you don’t know what flaws or deficiencies it has, on what basis do you reject it? It seems one would need to be aware of those key points before one decided to not believe it.

-TS
 
Touchstone said:
If you don’t know what flaws or deficiencies it has, on what basis do you reject it? It seems one would need to be aware of those key points before one decided to not believe it.

-TS
Click to expand...
One key point I know is that they can’t find the in-between skeletons that should be there as one animal is suppose to change into another animal.
 
Techno2000 said:
One key point I know is that they can’t find the in-between skeletons that should be there as one animal is suppose to change into another animal.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm… I think maybe you have not looked at the evidence, and just going on the way you phrase it ‘one animal is suppose to change into another’ I have a suspicion you don’t actually fully understand what evolution is.

If you have evidence that evolution is not scientifically evident, then please share it. At the moment it appears you do not believe in it as you think you should not, and are now trying to find reasons to sustain this belief. I may have misrepresented you here, but it is what comes across.
 
FightingFat said:
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???
Click to expand...
“Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups.”
—Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb
 
Techno2000 said:
Ok what some of the KEY points that are used to shoot down the theory of evolution… I’m not a believer of it.
Click to expand...
As far as I can see some of the major creationist arguments against evolution are:* I didn’t come from no monkey, no siree bob.
  • I personally cannot see how it happened therefore it didn’t happen.
  • Richard Dawkins is an atheist.
  • Evolution contradicts a narrow literalistic interpretation of Genesis that is not shared by most Christians.
rossum
 
rossum said:
As far as I can see some of the major creationist arguments against evolution are:* I didn’t come from no monkey, no siree bob.
  • I personally cannot see how it happened therefore it didn’t happen.
  • Richard Dawkins is an atheist.
  • Evolution contradicts a narrow literalistic interpretation of Genesis that is not shared by most Christians.
rossum
Click to expand...
If evolution is true where’s the"Missing Link".😛
 
Techno2000 said:
“Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups.”
—Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb
Click to expand...
Do understand that Gould was saying that there are transitionals? And that creationists misrepresent him? Misrepresentation is a creationist/IDist tactic that can frequently be observed on this forum.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
hecd2 said:
Do understand that Gould was saying that there are transitionals? And that creationists misrepresent him? Misrepresentation is a creationist/IDist tactic that can frequently be observed on this forum.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
Click to expand...
Ok, so what does punctuated equilibria mean ?
 
Techno2000 said:
“Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups.”
—Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb
Click to expand...
Exactly! Are we talking at cross purposes here?? :confused:
 
Techno2000 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think that’s a fair if somewhat un-nuanced description of Gould and Eldredge’s hypothesis, but you will note that it does not claim that there are no transitionals (a misrepresentation that Gould himself was fulminating against in the very quote you used but seemed not to understand) and furthermore that others have given you some examples of clear transitionals in the record which explode the claim that there aren’t any, don’t you think? We could provide you with a very very long list, but logically one is enough to refute the claim.

It is also true that Darwin himself did not hold to a model of uniform gradualism.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
hecd2 said:
I think that’s a fair if somewhat un-nuanced description of Gould and Eldredge’s hypothesis, but you will note that it does not claim that there are no transitionals (a misrepresentation that Gould himself was fulminating against in the very quote you used but seemed not to understand) and furthermore that others have given you some examples of clear transitionals in the record which explode the claim that there aren’t any, don’t you think? We could provide you with a very very long list, but logically one is enough to refute the claim.

It is also true that Darwin himself did not hold to a model of uniform gradualism.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
Click to expand...
Its a very short list there should be millions of these transitional skeletons around… where are they?Gould had to come up with some gobbledygook hypothesis to explain away this problem .
 
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.
 
Bob_Crowley said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thank you 👍
 
Part 1 of 2
Bob_Crowley said:
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.
Click to expand...
There are many more than you probably think. Not many of them are famous. How many of the Synapsid → Mammal sequence of transitionals are you familiar with?Paleothyris, Clepsydrops, Archaeothyris, Varanops, Haptodus, Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon, Biarmosuchia, Procynosuchus, Dvinia (aka “Permocynodon”), Thrinaxodon, Cynognathus, Diademodon, Probelesodon, Probainognathus, Exaeretodon, Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium, Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus, Adelobasileus cromptoni, Sinoconodon, Kuehneotherium, Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon, Peramus, Endotherium, Kielantherium, Aegialodon, Steropodon galmani, Vincelestes neuquenianus, Pariadens kirklandi, Kennalestes, Asioryctes, Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops. It is quite possible that Dimetrodon is the only one of that list you have heard of. Source: Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ - 1b
  1. 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.
Click to expand...
Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution. We have some knowledge of what happened during abiogenesis, but that knowledge is far from complete. Beware of trying to fit your God into a gap that science is working to close. That will only result in your God getting smaller.
  1. The so-called “Cambrian Explosion of Life” when all phyla suddenly appeared in the fossil record, including vertebrates.
Click to expand...
The word “all” is a lie told to you by some creationist websites. Here is a table of when various phyla appeared:
Code: 
Period              # animal phyla    # plant phyla  total phyla
======              ==============    =============  ===========
Recent               12                 1             13
Oligocene             1                 1              2
Eocene                1                 1              2
Jurassic              1                 0              1
Triassic              0                 3              3
Carboniferous         3                 2              5
Devonian              1                 3              4
Silurian              0                 1              1
Ordovician            1                 0              1
Cambrian              9                 0              9
Vendian               4                 0              4

From Glenn Morton: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cambevol.htm
Most if not all of the 12 “Recent” phyla probably appeared earlier, but we have no fossil record for them - think small squishy marine invertebrates with no hard parts. This table does not include the phyla of fungae. As you can see from the table, the Cambrian is indeed important for animals, it is completely unimportant for plants and is is a far cry from “all” phyla. Your creationist sources have been lying to you.
  1. The massive deposits of fossils in many places which indicate sudden burial (eg. a flood).
Click to expand...
Please indicate where evolutionary theory does not allow the possibility of flooding.
  1. Observed short term formation of coal after local catastrophic events eg. Mt. St. Helens.
Click to expand...
Scientists have known that local catastrophes can cause sudden rock formation since Vesuvius erupted. Please indicate where evolutionary theory does not allow some local catastrophic events.
  1. 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.
Click to expand...
Even Answers in Genesis have given up on many of these. Do you really think that other people will accept them if AiG does not believe them? See Arguments we Don’t Use. Moon dust in the first on their list.
  1. Genetic decay at observed rates should have led to a very weak strain of human if we’re as old as claimed.
Click to expand...
Reference please.
  1. Very limited fossil remains to point to human evolution.
Click to expand...
We would like to have more, but we have enough to be reasonably sure of the overall picture.
  1. Sudden emergence of advanced civilisations with multiple skills - art, law, literature, philosophy, architecture, building, military skills.
Click to expand...
What does this have to do with the theory of evolution?
  1. 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.
Click to expand...
What does this have to do with evolution?

continued …
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top