Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
Techno2000:
If the environment changes fast how is slow evolution going to keep up, it takes millons of years for evolution to work, while environments can change overnight, the time doesn’t add up.
Click to expand...
When environments change suddenly some animals migrate to places better suited for them. Or they just die out, as many species have done.
Click to expand...
What environmental change caused a small furry land critter to morph into a Whale ?
 
Techno2000 said:
What environmental change caused a small furry land critter to morph into a Whale ?
Click to expand...
First it morphed into something like an otter: a furry aquatic predator. Then it morphed further into something like a seal: better adapted for water and less well adapted to land. Finally to a dolphin/whale, well adapted to water and not able to move on land.

Why? There are a lot of fish in water to eat, and you don’t have to compete with other land predators to find them. In short there was an available ecological niche.

rossum
 
Techno2000 said:
What environmental change caused a small furry land critter to morph into a Whale ?
Click to expand...
You are expecting too much from evolution if you think it is necessary to have an explanation for every change that has ever occurred. Just because we don’t know how each individual change came about does not mean they didn’t happen. The transformation you mentioned was undoubtedly composed of thousands of smaller intermediate changes. Some (but not all) of the intermediate species are actually known.
 
And therein lies the problem. The evolutionist can look ay the badger and then the otter amd then thr seal and then the whale and say: intermediate stages, but those aren’t the important atages. The important stages are the thousands of generations between those functioning stages where we have a creature who by definition cannot be as specialized or as effective as the creature it was before. The not-quite otter.

But the evolutionist ignores that and claims every single one of those stages and generations was either a clear benefit, or at the minimum was a neutral change. Which stretches the limits of credibility.
 
ChunkMonk said:
And therein lies the problem. The evolutionist can look ay the badger and then the otter amd then thr seal and then the whale and say: intermediate stages, but those aren’t the important atages.
Click to expand...
No biologist would ever say that some stage was “unimportant.” And why is that a “problem?”
But the evolutionist ignores that and claims every single one of those stages and generations was either a clear benefit, or at the minimum was a neutral change. Which stretches the limits of credibility.
Click to expand...
What is it that stretches credibility? That there were many stages of change that were beneficial or neutral? That does not seem so incredulous to me.
 
ChunkMonk said:
The important stages are the thousands of generations between those functioning stages where we have a creature who by definition cannot be as specialized or as effective as the creature it was before. The not-quite otter.

But the evolutionist ignores that and claims every single one of those stages and generations was either a clear benefit, or at the minimum was a neutral change. Which stretches the limits of credibility.
Click to expand...
Right, and if it took the land critter 15 million years to morph into a Whale, then it must have taken it at least 1 million years for it to become a otter.
 
ChunkMonk said:
The important stages are the thousands of generations between those functioning stages where we have a creature who by definition cannot be as specialized or as effective as the creature it was before.
Click to expand...
Right, and it take millons of years for the animal to go through these stages so that it’s fit for survival. 🤔
 
It may be an artificial distinction that undergirds evolution theory. Speciation is loss of an ability once had.
 
ChunkMonk said:
The important stages are the thousands of generations between those functioning stages where we have a creature who by definition cannot be as specialized or as effective as the creature it was before.
Click to expand...
And it’s producing offspring for millons years the are just as unspecialized and ineffectual as it.
 
Last edited:
Well he did write how he could be wrong in the book. He also uses God in his argument and this book should be banned from the public school. 😀
 
LeafByNiggle said:
What is it that stretches credibility? That there were many stages of change that were beneficial or neutral? That does not seem so incredulous to me.
Click to expand...
Let’s take the snake for example. The theory as I understand it is that the snake originally had legs, but in order to get through smaller and smaller holes it eventually lost those legs. Good theory.

But what we’re suggesting is that every single intermediate stage of creature in which it still had legs but they were smaller and smaller was beneficial. But by the very theory of evolution it grew legs to that original length precisely because legs of that length were within the parameters of optimization. So these intermediate creatures, of which there would have to be at least hundreds of generations, had less “optimal” leg lengths. Increasingly so, until we reach the (at minimum dozens) of generations where the legs don’t even function but are simply energy consuming organs.

All the while, this creature has to compete with the other creatures that are optimized and don’t possess these “flaws.”

This process would have to be repeated tens of millions of times with countless creatures to take us from protein-strand to human. Tens of millions of “less than optimal” stages competing with their “cousins” who did not have the mutation and were theoretically still optimized.

That’s a mighty hurdle. Now, the Christian can work around this. He could say that God came down and protected the less-optimized intermediate stage creatures by miraculous intervention… But that is not science, and that itself calls into question why God didn’t just create the ‘optimized’ creature out of whole cloth.

It stretches the limits of credibility no matter how I look at it.
 
Last edited:
Your imagination is too limited in this case. You failed to take into account the possibility that the ancestors of snakes were well-adapted to their niche, but some of them tried to move into new niches where they were not so well-adapted. They found a new niche that had not been exploited before, so it became advantageous to ditch the legs for those that were trying to live in this new niche.
 
Essential reading…a trillion trillion years or more

Uh OH! Essential reading for evo supporters.

…As other scientists have found with other enzymes, it turned out not to be a snap. The technical details are reported in a paper just published in BIO-Complexity. [2] Here we’ll keep it simple.
Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied.

When Theory and Experiment Collide

idvolution.blogspot.com

Essential reading.....a trillion trillion years or more

IDvolution - Where faith and reason intersect. - intelligent design Jim Serafin
idvolution.blogspot.com idvolution.blogspot.com
 
I know that Hugh Ross (who is not a Young Earth creationist) says that mathematically, evolution is only possible with microscopic organisms. I forgot exactly what his argument was, but it was very convincing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top