Why I don't believe in evolution

[Kevin_Walker]

Exporter:

The evolution of the eye is too complex for a discussion here. May er look at something THAT DID HAPPEN in Pittsburg?

A species of Moth , about two inches long, lived in the White Birch trees all around Pittsburg. The Moths were white. The birds liked to eat them, but the moth was hard to find on a Birch tree. Al ways a few of the Moths were a little darker because of random mutations.

Then the steel industry arrived. They burned a lot of coal and the trees became sooty and finally very dark. After 40 years that species of Moth was not White anymore. The moths became very dark, and the birds had a hard time finding the Moths who now blended into their surroundings.

This is a well-known example of “survival of the fittest”. Of course a few gene changes falcilitated the phenominon.

Hi Exporter,

I took BIOLOGY 111 & 112 (with lab), PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 211 (with lab), GENETICS 212 (with lab), and the PHILOSOPHY OF EVOLUTION as an undergraduate in the early 80s, and we beat the subject of the Peppered Moth (Biston Betularia) and industrial melonism to death in each of those courses.

Exactly what level of education are you currently on? Because this is old news to anyone familiar with biological evolution in Manchester England between 1848 & 1950! Selective evolution with the Peppered moth is a classic case study required by all BIOLOGY 101 undergraduates, and is common knowledge, along with Mendelian genetics and the Punnet square, the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium formula; and drysophilia.

 

[Wolseley]

Personally, I believe God is the Ultimate Source, and He created all life. I’m not really interested in how He chose to do it, whether it was by direct creation or by billions of years of evolution; that’s His business, not mine.

That having been said, it is my understanding that there are a great many glaring flaws in Darwinist evolutionary theories—legitimate, scientific flaws; but they are usually ignored or left out of the data pool because they don’t fit the prevailing schools of thought which are acceptable to the scientific community. More than likey, 500 years from now people will look back at Darwinism the way we look back at angels dancing on the head of a pin.

Exporter:

The evolution of the eye is too complex for a discussion here. May er look at something THAT DID HAPPEN in Pittsburg?

A species of Moth , about two inches long, lived in the White Birch trees all around Pittsburg. The Moths were white. The birds liked to eat them, but the moth was hard to find on a Birch tree. Al ways a few of the Moths were a little darker because of random mutations.

Then the steel industry arrived. They burned a lot of coal and the trees became sooty and finally very dark. After 40 years that species of Moth was not White anymore. The moths became very dark, and the birds had a hard time finding the Moths who now blended into their surroundings.

This is a well-known example of “survival of the fittest”. Of course a few gene changes falcilitated the phenominon.

Two discrepancies here: one, this story, as Newman pointed out, was originally set in England, not Pittsburgh. Two, there are two species of the peppered moth: one is light gray with black flecks, and the other is black with light gray flecks. They are the same species with different coloring, similar to the way that field sparrows and chipping sparrows are colored differently, but still sparrows.

When the tree trunks were light-colored, the birds could more easily spot the black moths, and undestandably enough, there were fewer or them. But when the tree trunks turned black, the black moths were harder to spot—but the light gray moths stood out more, and so the birds went after them instead. The light-gray moth population correspondingly dropped.

That’s not evolution, folks. If anything, it’s more along the lines of demographics. Nothing “changed into” anything else; you had two different-colored moths to begin with, and whether the birds ate more of one or the other depended on what sort of environmental background they were forced into.

 

[Ahimsa]

Angainor:

It does? Who got it first?

I don’t think it matters who got it first. The one who got it first simply got the initial jump on the competition.

 

[Angainor]

Ahimsa:

I don’t think it matters who [the predator or the prey] got it [light-sensitive spot] first. The one who got it first simply got the initial jump on the competition.

It would have to be proven to me that a light-sensitive spot would give the creature a “jump on the competition”. Simply being able to see danger or see food is not an advantage in itself, just ask the deer in the headlights. The deer can see the oncoming danger, but does not use that information to avoid the danger.

You are making an assumption. That assumption is that sight automatically creates competative advantage. I have one example where that assumption is wrong. Since there is an example to the contrary, it cannot be automatically assumed that sight creates competative adantage.

That is why I disbelieve in Darwininian Evolution.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Angainor:

It would have to be proven to me that a light-sensitive spot would give the creature a “jump on the competition”. Simply being able to see danger or see food is not an advantage in itself, just ask the deer in the headlights. The deer can see the oncoming danger, but does not use that information to avoid the danger.

You are making an assumption. That assumption is that sight automatically creates competative advantage. I have one example where that assumption is wrong. Since there is an example to the contrary, it cannot be automatically assumed that sight creates competative adantage.

That is why I disbelieve in Darwininian Evolution.

Let me stop laughing long enough to reply.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

The issue is the development of the eye – and that’s well documented, from a light sensitive spot, to a cup-shaped spot, to a simple “pin-hole” eye to an eye with a lens.

And now you want to say someone has to prove to you that’s an advantage!!http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Nature is the only one to whom that must be “proved” – and, given the vast number of species with eyes, Nature has obviously been convinced.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Angainor:

To explain why I don’t believe in evolution, I will return to the popular subject of the evolution of the eye.

Please Lord! Not this same tired old chestnut again!
:banghead:

…… When a deer sees headlights it has exactly the wrong reaction. A deer will freeze in place.

Typical all or nothing attack

You fail to account for the fact that headlights are a recent occurrence
The eye is hundreds of millions of years old while headlights are maybe a few centuries old if you count lamps on stage coaches

Eyes didn’t evolve to deal with headlights
nor did the reflexes of a deer
standing still when startled by a preditor (who happens to be looking for movement using its EYES) is a survival advantage

…… Until it can be scientifically demonstrated to me that a simple light-sensitive spot represents a survival advantage, I withhold belief.

sigh
(1) evolution is not something to be “believed” in is a both a theory and a fact and the basis for all modern biology
(2) ask an earthworm caught out in the sunlight if light sensitive spots are a survival advantage

…… I picture the little critter with a light-sensitive spot seeing a preadator and “thinking” ‘Well, what is that coming this way?’ gulp. Just like the deer “thinking” ‘Well, what is that coming this way?’ thunk.

:banghead:
Things that prey on deer don’t have headlights

Sunlit waters are where the nutrients and plants are. Herbivores will go there to look for food, predators will go there to look for prey, and scavengers will go there to look for the remains
(Note how “look” appears prominent in those statements; although the same mechanisms apply to sniff and feel)

And IIRC there are species of deep sea predators that exploit this attraction to light to lure prey……funny how things evolve and adapt to conditions.

I try to be charitable but if you are going to attack evolution please have a working knowledge of what it is first

PS links about the eye
talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113_1.html

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

 

[Angainor]

vern humphrey:

Let me stop laughing long enough to reply.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

The issue is the development of the eye – and that’s well documented, from a light sensitive spot, to a cup-shaped spot, to a simple “pin-hole” eye to an eye with a lens.

And now you want to say someone has to prove to you that’s an advantage!!http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Absolutely! I have a right to demand proof. Science is in the business of proving things. Only things that are taken as an assumption do not need to be proved. I assume that if I drop something heavy on earth that it will fall. If I can demonstrate one instance where something heavy dropped does not fall, then we have a bad assumption.

If you don’t want to prove that a light-sensitive spot would be an advantage, then you have to take that as an assumption. I can demonstrate one instance where being able to sense danger is not an advantage, and that is the example of the deer in the headlights. Therefore you cannot assume that a light-sensitive spot would represent an advantage. You have to prove it.

As for being “well documented”, that may very well be, but it better be better documented than this website:

Here’s how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator

vern humphrey:

Nature is the only one to whom that must be “proved” – and, given the vast number of species with eyes, Nature has obviously been convinced.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

Now it is my turn to chuckle. Circular reasoning. Of course evolution can produce an eye, you can see can’t you?

 

[Steve_Andersen]

It is amazing a red herring, a straw man, AND a misunderstanding the basic principles of evolution all in one paragraph

 

[vern_humphrey]

Angainor:

Of course evolution can produce an eye, you can see can’t you?

And on that note, the argument is over. We both agree, evolution CAN produce an eye – and has. QED

 

[Angainor]

Steve Andersen:

You fail to account for the fact that headlights are a recent occurrence
The eye is hundreds of millions of years old while headlights maybe a few centuries old if you count lamps on stage coaches

No, I did not fail to account for that fact.

Here’s how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator

To the ancestral creature who just gained the use of a light-sensitive spot, the detection of the predator is a recent occurrence! The creature was never able to detect it before! Given time (hundreds or thousands of years) the deer may evolve a life-saving response to being able to detect the new danger of automobiles. Given time (hundreds or thousands of years), the ancestral creature might evolve a life-saving response to the new ability to detect predators. In the meantime, the light-sensitive spot is useless, and is likely to be lost. There is no immediate advantage, not even a small one.
Steve Andersen:

(2) ask an earthworm caught out in the sunlight if light sensitive spots are a survival advantage

You give the earthworm way to much credit. The brain of an earthworm cannot put 2 and 2 together. So it can see brightness. Big deal. It’s not as if the earthworm can associate “brightness” with “my skin is going to dry out” and then conclude “I better get underground”.

That is the fundamental problem. The earthworm may eventually evolve a “get underground” response to the detection of “brightness”. Eventually. But it cannot begin to evolve the response before it has gained the ability to detect “brightness”. Being able to detect “brightness” is completely useless until it can evolve a “get underground” response to brightness.

Do you see the paradox?
Steve Andersen:

I try to be charitable but if you are going to attack evolution please have a working knowledge of what it is first

I do.

 

[Angainor]

Of course evolution can produce an eye, you can see can’t you?

vern humphrey:

And on that note, the argument is over. We both agree, evolution CAN produce an eye – and has. QED

Very funny.

Of course martians built the pyramids, they exist, don’t they?

 

[Steve_Andersen]

……. In the meantime, the light-sensitive spot is useless, and is likely to be lost.

any basis for this statement?

Since even some of the most primitive forms of life around today have some sensitivity to light it is clearly a survival benefit

The sun is a dominant feature in the landscape and (apart form some deep dwelling organisms) it powers most food chains

To say sensitivity to light is useless is…unconvincing

remember that “light sensitivity” doesn’t necessarily mean “seeing”

…….There is no immediate advantage, not even a small one.

of course there is!

Angainor:

You give the earthworm way to much credit. The brain of an earthworm cannot put 2 and 2 together. So it can see brightness. Big deal. It’s not as if the earthworm can associate “brightness” with “my skin is going to dry out” and then conclude “I better get underground”.

Sigh
It is an instinct
A reflex… not a rational response
Just like the deer freezing in the headlights

……. That is the fundamental problem. The earthworm may eventually evolve a “get underground” response to the detection of “brightness”. Eventually. But it cannot begin to evolve the response before it has gained the ability to detect “brightness”. Being able to detect “brightness” is completely useless until it can evolve a “get underground” response to brightness.

Do you see the paradox?I do.

No, you are creating a false dilemma

Worms always had to turn away from the sun to avoid drying out
Being sensitive to light merely made them do it better

Even if that first light sensitive spot made them 0.00001% more likely to survive that is more than enough over billions of years for it t become dominant

 

[Philip_P]

If you want to bring up deer and headlights in reference to natural selection, it’s not the deer that get hit you should be looking at, but those that don’t. The deer that manage to avoid being hit by a car are doing something the roadkill aren’t. Whatever it is they’re doing, it’s puts them at an advantage over the other deer. Since they’re still alive, it’s their traits that are passed on, NOT the dead deer. Hence the term “survival of the fittest.”

 

[misterX]

Kevin Walker:

No. It only manifests more questions. Such as are you aware that the Catholic Church does not have a problem with the theory of evolution? Which essentially renders your initial assertion moot on a Catholic forum.

Or did you realize that the Catholic Church distinguishes the difference between Darwinism and evolution? And the Church’s definition of evolution does not correspond to your definition of evolution, which makes your assertion irrelevent.

Your definition of “the modern version of Darwin’s theory that explains the formation of the life on earth today by processes as natural selection” would appear to be more relevent on a science forum than one on the Catholic faith.

Just thought I’d let you know.

You do know that catholics aren’t robots…and we don’t have to agree 100% with the chruch on every issue? If people want to belong to a church that don’t want people thinking for themselves on every issue they can always be a protestant…And the bit about animals matching its predators advancement with advancement is just ridiculous.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Angainor:
…
Of course martians built the pyramids, they exist, don’t they?

If you could posit a mechanism for Martians building the pyramids that is consistent with observed data and which makes predictions that can be independently verified then go right ahead.

Your focusing on the eye (no pun intended) is a common logical fallacy
You’re trying very hard to find some sort of problem with a small part of the theory and then project that onto the body of knowledge as a whole. “See, they can’t answer my question about the eye so the whole thing must be wrong.”

In the example you gave about gravity has a similar flaw
You proposed that if one thing failed to fall when dropped then the whole theory of gravity must be scrapped…that is clearly not the case since it would still hold for every other object that was dropped. It would merely mean that a modification to the theory would be needed

Sort of how we still use the “laws of motion” for everyday events even though Relativity is more accurate

Science works on probabilities and the preponderance of the evidence. One or two supposed outliers do not shoot a theory down

 

[wanerious]

Angainor:

Absolutely! I have a right to demand proof. Science is in the business of proving things. Only things that are taken as an assumption do not need to be proved. I assume that if I drop something heavy on earth that it will fall. If I can demonstrate one instance where something heavy dropped does not fall, then we have a bad assumption.

No. Science is not in the business of proving things. The business of science is constructing a system whereby we design experiments to gather data that may or may not support a certain hypothesis. Nothing in science is ever proved, only strengthened by corroborating evidence or disproved by such evidence. Your example is imprecise. Yes, if you drop something heavy, it will fall. But at what rate, exactly? You will find, with delicate enough instruments, that the rate of the fall is different for a photon than for an equivalent mass. The rate of fall is different on different planets, and also the trajectory of fall is slightly different depending on the mass’ rate of rotation. That things fall is a fact, much as asserting that organisms are genetically different from their parents is a fact. The theory that describes this collection of facts is called, on one hand, the General Theory of Relativity (supplanting Newton’s Laws), and the Theory of Evolution on the other.

If you don’t want to prove that a light-sensitive spot would be an advantage, then you have to take that as an assumption. I can demonstrate one instance where being able to sense danger is not an advantage, and that is the example of the deer in the headlights. Therefore you cannot assume that a light-sensitive spot would represent an advantage. You have to prove it.

It is anecdotal, but convincing to me, to consider alternatives. You rightly point out where sensitivity to light is possibly perilous, but we should carefully analyze the risk/reward to the organism. What fraction of deer (or other highway-crossing critters) are creamed by cars? In your mind, would a population of deer be more likely to survive if they were blind? In fact, could it not be more likely that a blind deer would be hit by a car than one that could see it coming?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Angainor:
Very funny.

Of course martians built the pyramids, they exist, don’t they?

We have both agreed that evolution CAN produce an eye. Since science can explain the mechanism AND show various stages of development of the eye, Occam’s Razor applies.

As for Martians building the pyramids, if you want to advance that argument, you must show:

1. There is life on Mars (so far, we have found no proof of that.)
2. There was an intelligent civilization on Mars, capable of manned interplanetary travel (the best we’ve done so far is reach the moon.)
3. The villages of Egyptian workers, with their primitive technology and lifestyle found near the pyramids have nothing to do with the building of the pyramids.

 

[RikasAngel]

Hello All,

I am a 22 year-old devout Catholic. I personally favor Evolutionary Theory and I’ll explain:

Firstly, we have to separate Evolution from Athiesm. They are two different things. Athiesm is denial of the existance of God. Evolution is the process by which new species are formed. Athiests use evolution as proof of their philosophy. However, if you examine Evolution closely it favors creation.

Mainstream Evolutionists claim that the main Catalysts of Evolution, Natural & Sexual selection, are undirected random forces. Unfortunately, there is an inhereant flaw in that logic. Undirected random forces cannot create constant complex diversity. The problem only worsens at the level of Planets and Stars. Dr. Michael Behe, the main proponent of Intelligent Design, points out the major flaws of “Darwinism” in his book Darwin’s Black Box.

Intelligent Desin is the Creation theory that I favor. Basically, it says that all the natural forces of the Universe are directed by a Supreme Intelligence. God. This satisfys Occum’s Razor, because it is simpler to believe that a Supreme Intelligence Directed the formation of the Universe, rather than just random coincidence.

If anyone wants more information on Intelligent Design, please look up the book Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe published by Ignatius Press and the website www.illustramedia.com which has a couple of great DVDs. Also look for the DVD “Icons of Evolution” on www.amazon.com . I hope this all helps.

 

[wabrams]

misterX:

If people want to belong to a church that don’t want people thinking for themselves on every issue they can always be a protestant.

If that’s true, then why are there so many denominations?

 

[Angainor]

Philip P:

If you want to bring up deer and headlights in reference to natural selection, it’s not the deer that get hit you should be looking at, but those that don’t. The deer that manage to avoid being hit by a car are doing something the roadkill aren’t. Whatever it is they’re doing, it’s puts them at an advantage over the other deer. Since they’re still alive, it’s their traits that are passed on, NOT the dead deer. Hence the term “survival of the fittest.”

Believe it or not, you are starting to get it. Deer might eventually evolve a survival response to the new danger of automobiles. Some deer, 1% or 20% or whatever, were probably born with the natural tendancy to jump out of the way when it sees headlights. If death by automobile is a significant factor, that percentage of deer would have a survival advantage and the percentage of deer born with a survival response might creep higher until they represent the majority. In other words, deer might eventually evolve a useful survival response to seeing headlights.

Here’s how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator

Now in the case of this critter, it too may eventually evolve a useful survival response to being able to detect predators with its light-sensitive spot. A certain percentage of critters might naturally ignore the preadator, a certian percentage might move towards the preadator, and a certain percentage might move away from the preadator. The critters born with the natural response of moving away from the preadator would have a clear advantage, and their percentage of the population would increase in time until they are the dominant critters. They might evolve a useful survival response to having a light-sensitive spot.

But the above example assumes the critters already have a light-sensitive spot. How did they get it? In order for the species of critter to get a light-sensitive spot, some critters would have to be born with them, then those critters are supposed to have some advantage by simply possessing the spot, then that advantage would select them to be the dominant. But the spot does not yet represent an advantage because, like the deer in the headlights, there does not exist a useful survival response. How can the spot spread into the population if it doesn’t represent an advantage?