Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“buffalo said:
“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.”
Click to expand...
As I’ve said before, as science, evolution doesn’t add up. Only divine intervention could make it work.
 
William_Scott said:
the unscientific silliness of modern microbe to man evolution
Click to expand...
“although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things” - Romans 1:21-23.

What is left when the truth of creation is thrown away? Why, only nonsense, of course.
 
This theory is just too vague.First of all, they say it’s the offspring that are fit , how are they fit when they are just helpless babies, and are going to need the unfit parents to raise them?
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
As it pertains to alternatives, the ToE is a more sound theory than alternatives on how life on our planet at the present came into being.
Click to expand...
ToE is the best scientific explanation for the fossil record, but that doesn’t mean it’s the truth - or even close to the truth. The best scientific explanation for how Jesus turned water into wine wouldn’t be worth the paper it’s written on.

Btw, according to ToE, how does a random mutation produce a heart valve?
 
Edgar said:
Btw, according to ToE, how does a random mutation produce a heart valve?
Click to expand...
A random mutation does not produce a heart valve. Many random mutations, filtered over many generations by natural selection can produce a heart valve.

You have been discussing evolution here for long enough to know that natural selection is a part of evolution.
 
Techno2000 said:
This theory is just too vague.First of all, they say it’s the offspring that are fit , how are they fit when they are just helpless babies, and are going to need the unfit parents to raise them?
Click to expand...
If there are babies then, by definition, the parents are fit. The unfit do not have offspring. The babies might be slightly more fit than their parents, but the parents have managed to survive long enough to reproduce.

Have you ever noticed an oak tree caring for one of its acorns? For many organisms, the young need a lot less care from their parents than human babies. You need to take a wider view of the ways life operates.
 
edwest said:
Not credible. Even RNA is too complex.
Click to expand...
It clearly isn’t, Ed. It exists.

And the trouble with “too complex” is that you don’t have an objective way to determine that. It’s almost as if you’re saying that if you don’t understand it, then God had to poof it into existence.

So if you don’t understand rotary engines, then that means God poofed those too?
 
Techno2000 said:
Ok, time for the details, give me an actual specific scenario of this ,instead of just a general concept.
Click to expand...
The Apolipoprotein A-I Milano mutation. See here.

The HbC malarial resistance mutation. See here.

One thing you should have learned about science is that there is a lot of data available in the scientific literature. When we say something we almost always have the evidence to back it up.
 
rossum said:
No. All gods, humans and animals have their own individual karma. Each of us carries a record of our own karma with us as part of our makeup. That record passes from one life to the next. There is no central ‘karma-computer’ running everything.
Click to expand...
Oh, so karma controls the destiny of every human life, but no one or nothing controls it!

How does karma know that stealing, for example, is “bad” and deserves a dose of bad karma? How does karma know the difference between stealing $1 and $1 million?
 
rossum said:
A random mutation does not produce a heart valve. Many random mutations, filtered over many generations by natural selection can produce a heart valve.
Click to expand...
How do mutations produce two heart valves?
You have been discussing evolution here for long enough to know that natural selection is a part of evolution.
Click to expand...
Why would natural selection favour part of a heart valve, which is useless and doesn’t convey a survival advantage?
 
Last edited:
Edgar said:
Why would natural selection favour part of a heart valve, which is useless and doesn’t convey a survival advantage?
Click to expand...
Right, and how does evolution always have perfect timing to produce these survival advantages for any future environmental change,but yet we are told evolution is a long millions and millons years process? Evolution has the answer by producing fit offspring, but it takes millons of years for these fit offspring to be born, when is anything fit during this time period?

So, apparently the environment was so nice and accommodating back in the day that it would slowly change at the same slow(millions of years ) rate of evolution. 🤔
 
Last edited:
Edgar said:
How do mutations produce two heart valves?
Click to expand...
The same way they produce two ears, two eyes, two arms etc. There are on/off switches for genes which are controlled by yet other genes, the HOX genes. Those HOX genes switch other genes on or off. Heart valve genes are switched on in two places, and not in other places – every cell contains a full complement of genes. Similarly, eye-making genes are switched on in two places and not in other places. See Shubin’s “Your Inner Fish” for a lot more detail.
Why would natural selection favour part of a heart valve, which is useless and doesn’t convey a survival advantage?
Click to expand...
It would favour a badly working valve if others in the species had no valve or an even worse working valve; natural selection works on relative advantage. Your sense of smell is a lot worse than a dog’s, but it is still good enough for us. Perfection is not required, merely a relative advantage.

If the mutation were genuinely useless then natural selection would ignore it and it would be subject to neutral drift.
 
rossum said:
It would favour a badly working valve if others in the species had no valve or an even worse working valve; natural selection works on relative advantage. Your sense of smell is a lot worse than a dog’s, but it is still good enough for us. Perfection is not required, merely a relative advantage.
Click to expand...
How does a mutation produce a “badly working” heart valve in an organism that has no DNA instructions for any sort of heart valve whatsoever?

Even if a mutation could produce a “badly working” heart valve, why would natural selection favour it if that is all there is? I mean, even a perfectly working heart valve would be useless by itself.
 
It makes no sense. A creature with a “badly working” heart valve would have blood diverted for no gain in fitness. And you’re right: no instructions, no valve. The alleged mutations that happen very slowly and randomly, would have to occur one after the other until one heart valve is completed, but that wouldn’t help either. Even if all valves could be built, electrical connections would have to be made and they would have to be enclosed. The heart would have to be proportional to the creature as well. Too complex to be left to chance. Make the heart too big and then what?
 
edwest said:
The alleged mutations that happen very slowly
Click to expand...
Seem to me that evolution would always have to be one step ahead of every environmental challenge.But how could evolution be one step ahead of every environmental challenge, when it takes evolution millions of years to do anything?
 

If rocks could talk​

Fossils and genetics show too little time exists in the universe for evolution​

What areas of biology are particularly compelling for the future? One is the whole field of genetics, where you see the striking phenomena of overlapping genes where the same strands of DNA are used to code different genes. It’s like a book that you can read backwards and forwards and it still makes sense. This is nearly unbelievable to believe with a Darwinian process.

What are your current projects? I’m working on discontinuities in the fossil record and explosionlike events in the history of life. Not just the Cambrian explosion, but all over the history of life you see new body plans and complex new structures appearing out of nowhere without the kind of gradual transitions you should find according to Darwinian predictions.

You’re working on the “waiting time problem”? Darwinian evolutionists seek confirmation in the fossil record and population genetics. But if you combine these two fields, you find that the time necessary for certain transitions would be at least 10 times longer than the time available. Michael Behe used mathematical modeling to study mutations where we have empirical data: for example, mosquito resistance to malaria drugs. Applying that model to a vertebrate species with a smaller population size and longer generational turnover, we find the time needed to get a single coordinated mutation is much longer than the existence of the entire universe.

wng.org

If rocks could talk

Fossils and genetics show too little time exists in the universe for evolution
wng.org
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top