The Question That Evolutionists Can't Answer

[romansh]

If we have (for any system that replicates):

heredity (traits aquired from a previous form)
variation (slight changes in the inherited traits)
selection (an environment will tend to allow a particular trait to replicate preferentially)

Then we must have evolution.

This is almost the definition of evolution as applied to biological systems.

 

Please don't take this wrong. However, your five responses tell me nothing. For example:

 

 

4. Evolution is based on the hypothesis that Earth is a bit older than six thousand years and is by and large consistent with radiochemical dating.

 

Poking fun at the extreme Christian view that the earth is 6 thousand years doesn't move the needle to help prove evolution.

 

Also, what particularly about "radiochemical dating" are you referring to. Again, it's a buzz phrase that sounds important but says nothing.

 

 

For your benefit

radiochemical dating is using the observation that radio isotopes decay at first order rates (the rate is proportional to the instantaneous concentration). So the age for a (well) isolated system can be calculated from the ratio of the radio isotope and a stable daughter product.

 

Carbon dating works on slightly different principles but it is in agreement with dendrochronology over the last year 11 000 years. Generally carbon dating should not be used for systems over 60 ky old or from aquatic marine life.

 

The fact it says nothing is probable more a reflection of the receiver rather than the transmitter.

Edited November 17, 2013 by romansh

[JosephM]

Here is how I sum up evolution, just to show how ridiculous it truly is:

 

Hi P.C.

 

Just a minor Caution..... As a matter of etiquette we try not to make statements here like that as it basically says that anyone that believes in evolution is ridiculous or their beliefs are ridiculous. It may be okay to believe that but it is better left unsaid because it is inflammatory in nature and disrespectful of those who may disagree with you. In short, one can make ones point without getting personal by omitting such inferences in ones posts.. . See guidelines HERE..

 

Thanks for your cooperation,

JosephM(as Moderator)

[romansh]

Just curious did anyone watch Ken miller's video. I know it is abit long.

 

The biological bits filled me with awe, especially where Miller discusses the human genome.

The other bits about how some Christian groups handle evolution, I must admit brought out some negative emotions.

[matteoam]

I understand Romansh. Evolution makes Gods work all the more miraculous though I understand that some might not share the notion that an agent is involved.

[JosephM]

Rom,

 

I watched much of it. Thanks,

 

Joseph

[Hornet]

 

1. By your own logic CP, God cannot exist as the creator, because something must have created God as nothing can come from nothing. God couldn't exist without being created, according to this view.

 

 

 

He probably meant, "If something began to exist, then something must have caused it to begin to exist."

[PaulS]

 

 

He probably meant, "If something began to exist, then something must have caused it to begin to exist."

 

I thought that is what I was trying to say, Hornet. It seemed to me that CP couldn't accept that a cell might exist without having a creator, but seems to accept that God existed without something causing God to begin to exist.

[murmsk]

Science run on the following statement

"Do observations/data fit the hypothesis?"

 

I doesn't require that all the little things are fully answered, but does require that the little things that you do have answers for fit the observations. The thought that "just because every little nonce is not been answered the hypothesis if false" suggests a lack of understanding of the scientific process.

 

In this case the little things that we do have answers for fit nicely the evolution hypothesis. Further, the logical extrapolations from observation fit as well.

 

 

 

When I have asked it on non-Christian websites, I typically get the response, "You're an idiot." However, I am simply trying to show that people really haven't put any of their own brain power into this. They presume that all scientists have no agenda and have completely proven evolution. Having said that, I would like someone to tell me IN THEIR OWN WORDS how the first cell supposedly assembled itself. Please, don't point to articles or YouTube videos. I want someone to explain this phenomenon to me.

 

The short answer to this is that it evolved starting from the primordial soup of chemicals some of which were produced here some of which came via asteroids with energy in the way of lightning. It has been shown in the laboratory if you shoot a spark through the primordial soup you get structures that are similar both in form and chemistry to a cell wall. This could have been the beginning?

 

 

The long answer would take volumes for each step. 99.9% of cell evolution involves chemistry..... understanding the available chemicals , energy sources, environment and what chemical processes might have occurred very little of which is understandable to most people.

 

The evolutionary process is a process of slinging stuff to a wall and seeing what sticks then doing it again and again. You have a soup of chemicals........ reactions between the chemicals occur almost all of which are inconsequential but given enough time eventually one happens at the right that leads to another that leads to another..... where there is an advantage. You now have an evolutionary change and the process starts again with the new deck of evolutionary cards or at least a deck with a new card to play.

 

 

Somewhere you made mention of when the dinosaurs died. This is a perfect example of evolution. The dinos were an evolutionary product of their environment (as are we). At that time the earth was warm and gave an advantage to large cool blooded creatures that relied on the environment for heat. Less need for heat generation less need for food. Well when the earth cooled, all these creatures that needed environmental heat for their body to function died. They lost their advantage. The creatures that had developed in the polar fringes with the ability of generate their own heat now had an advantage. With the loss of the all the large cool blooded predators creatures more adapted to a cooler climate evolved to fill the void.

 

 

My question to renewedinfaith is how do observations support your hypothesis? (the two hypothesis's are different so you can't use holes in one as support for the other)

 

steve

[Hornet]

 

I thought that is what I was trying to say, Hornet. It seemed to me that CP couldn't accept that a cell might exist without having a creator, but seems to accept that God existed without something causing God to begin to exist.

 

 

Things such as moral values and the laws of logic can only come from personal things, not from impersonal things. The uncreated cause of all things that began to exist must be personal.

[PaulS]

Things such as moral values and the laws of logic can only come from personal things, not from impersonal things. The uncreated cause of all things that began to exist must be personal.

 

I don't see morals as being initiated by some personal agent, but rather a result of evolution of various survival mechanisms.

 

If it is logical for something to be 'uncreated' then that logic must extend to it being possible that the start of life (big bang, first cells, etc) was uncreated.

[NORM]

 

I want anybody who believes in evolution to tell me five things about evolution that you know is true.

 

OK, but first you should know that I don't "believe" in evolution. I think it most accurately describes human and animal development.

 

1. Evolution is a theory, just as is gravitational theory and nuclear theory.

 

2. Evolution is responsible for our current understanding of how diseases work, and has led to many discoveries in immunology. As a result, there are many millions of people alive today who would otherwise not.

 

3. Evolution is supported by countless peer reviewed articles, papers, books and research projects.

 

4. Evolution theory is supported by the Catholic Church, the United Methodist Church, National Baptist Convention (USA), Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA), National Baptist Convention of America, African Methodist Episcopal Church, and the Episcopal Church to name just a few.

 

5. Evolution theory has itself evolved into social reforms which champion freedom of thought, action and being and deliverance from restrictive systems that impose unnecessary restraints on those freedoms.

 

Mr. 1964, with all due respect, you might want to update your case against evolution by about 8 or 9 years. Most of your arguments were answered during the Supreme Court trials concerning Intelligent Design (ID lost, btw) in 2005 and 2006. The YouTube video posted in this thread from the CWRU in Ohio would be a good starting point for you.

 

BTW, it might be of interest for you to learn that at that time, I was on the Intelligent Design side of the debate. I also knew then (as I recognize still), that it was a very real attempt to circumvent peer review and the scientific method and insert Creationism (a theistic worldview) into the school curriculum. At the time, I thought that was a worthwhile goal.

 

NORM

[roymercer]

How the the first cell came into existance is nothing to do with evolution. The creation of life is a seperate topic that nobody has yet proposed a solution for. I believe the the Universe started with the Big Bang as the scientists claim but I believe the Big Bang was caused by God. A vicar I know when he is asked by children if God made the Earth he says ,of course but if you want to know how he did it, go ask the scientists. You fundamentalists should be trying to work out a theology that is compatible with both scientific knowledge and common sence as well as the teachings of Jesus Christ.

[Hornet]

I don't see morals as being initiated by some personal agent, but rather a result of evolution of various survival mechanisms.

 

If it is logical for something to be 'uncreated' then that logic must extend to it being possible that the start of life (big bang, first cells, etc) was uncreated.

 

 

Inanimate survival mechanisms are not concerned about what is morally right or morally wrong. Survival value is not the same as the rightness or wrongness of an action.

[romansh]

Inanimate survival mechanisms are not concerned about what is morally right or morally wrong. Survival value is not the same as the rightness or wrongness of an action.

 

I think evolution has endowed an ability to have a sense of morality. Our environment fills that sense with what we consider "right and wrong". Certain people (perhaps sociopaths) have a much diminished sense of morality, nevertheless the large majority of these people can function satisfactorily in society, (I think/hope).

Edited December 6, 2013 by romansh

[PaulS]

Inanimate survival mechanisms are not concerned about what is morally right or morally wrong. Survival value is not the same as the rightness or wrongness of an action.

I would argue that the rightness or wrongness of an action has evolved along with humanity - it was once morally right to have slaves, now it's not. Some societies had a moral code where it was okay to stone your daughter for not being a virgin, now it's not.

 

But in general, we humans have chosen morals that suit and/or benefit our development. Killing is okay (war) but not within your own tribe (murder). Adultery is okay (divorce, remarriage) but it can harm (jealousy, distrust).

 

The moral yardstick is determined by the culture and society because we have evolved making decision about what does and doesn't advantage our growth.

[SteveS55]

I think it’s possible to make a distinction between what is recognized as “moral” by a particular society versus a truly “moral” action. Somewhere along the evolutionary trail, humans (or their ancestors) finally figured out that it was more beneficial to cooperate with members of a neighboring clan, as opposed to maiming or killing them. Even animals are capable of doing this.

 

I think it’s clear that much of what passes as morality is, and has been, of the relative variety. Those rules of behavior are generally stated in legalistic terms in the form of laws, commandments or precepts. They may change from time to time and I think this is a product of cultural evolution. To be considered a “moral” person, one merely has to stay within the societal boundaries.

 

Personally, I think the truly moral act is one that results in carrying out an intentional, volitional action for the well-being of the individual and those around him/her. So, I think it’s possible not to be regarded as a “moral person” within the letter of the law, but be capable of performing a truly moral act. I guess an image that comes to mind is someone who rescues a child from a burning building. The example is a bit dramatic, but there are people who have done it.

 

Again, personally I think that the truly moral act arises from compassion and is carried out in that spirit. Compassion may or may not be influenced by genetic or cultural evolution, but those who carry out acts of compassion may very well have inherited a genetic predisposition to do so. Still, unless one is a strict determinist, I think there is room to at least consider these actions as somewhere beyond both genetic and cultural evolution. For all I know, “moral law” maybe somehow contained within the fabric of the universe. But, I think it is nearly impossible for people to grasp a concept such as “absolute morality”, so we make up stuff to compensate.

 

Peace.

Steve

[romansh]

I think it’s possible to make a distinction between what is recognized as “moral” by a particular society versus a truly “moral” action.

 

I must admit I don't buy your first line Steve.

 

This line presumes true morality^TM exists and that we somehow have free will.

[SteveS55]

Hi Rom,

 

The problem with the word “morality” is that it is highly abstract, and as you suggest, it includes the proposition that there is an “absolute” or “true” anything. With all due respect to Plato, and many other philosophers, I don’t see things quite that way. There is the nature of something, and then there is what we label it, prior to or even without investigation. Things are the way they are and, in my opinion, nothing else needs to be said about them.

 

I agree with you that “free will” is a highly overrated doctrine. At best, we have limited choice, and even those choices have been largely determined by genetic and environmental factors. But, we act as if we have free will, and if that is illusory, we all suffer from the same illusion. Personally, I think we must act believing we have free will.

 

My opinion with regard to the concept of “morality” is that there is a sort of optimum mode of actions and behaviors which lead to the well-being of the individual and the group. That statement in itself is highly conceptual, but I also believe there is universal acceptance among reasonable people as to what that looks like in practice. As an example, no reasonable person would criticize another for providing warmth to a homeless person in the dead of winter, or giving a morsel of food to a hungry dog. Anyone can give other examples.

 

Without reliance on the word “morality” I might use the word “harmony”. As far as I can tell, there is no “absolute harmony”. There is either harmony or there is not. Still, to an observer, the person who lives in harmony with his or her environment looks like a “moral person”. So, would anyone living “in harmony” with his/her environment kill another being? Without relying on questions of “morality”, I think the answer is no. Understanding we are all part of this reality, with the same problems, desire for happiness, etc., a person would not kill another being. One who realizes the inter-relatedness of all things has no problem with being what people label as “moral”.

 

This is getting a bit long winded, so I’ll stop for now. This is a pretty weighty topic, and I haven’t really come up with an operational definition for what I mean by “harmony”.

 

Peace.

Steve

[SlashCrowley]

 

 

Paul, thanks for your thoughts Again, I certainly don't mean for this to be contentious. I certainly haven't gotten that feeling from you. I just want you to know that I am writing in the same spirit.

 

Here are several reasons why I think evolution can't be true:

1. Ex Nihilo, nihil fit. "Out of nothing, nothing comes." Scientists agree that 13.7 billion years ago there was, quite literally, nothing. No atoms, protons, neurons, etc. Nothing. There is no scientific explanation for how something can grow out of nothing. To me, it's just common sense. If there was a point when nothing existed, then there was no scientific way for that to change.

2. It defies logic. How does green slime turn itself into an African elephant, fire ant, or cockroach? It doesn't. Nowhere in the universe do we see this taking place. Heck, man cannot even do this with all of his brain power. And we're to believe that a gob of goo with no brain, no construction manual, and no guidance, built itself into entities and creatures that are vastly superior in function than anything man can make.

3. The first cell. A simple cell consists of about 10 million parts. Putting aside the fact that there never was any matter from which a cell could be self-created, how did this cell assemble all of its 10 million parts into working order? Again, it had no brain, so it could not have sat there and figure this out. Also, a cell burns energy. What would this first cell consume to ensure that it had energy to get up and running? It's like making a car and then realizing you have no gas. Also, why would this cell suddenly decide that it wanted to start splitting itself in two. And here's the real kicker: the original cell HAD to have DNA inside it to perpetuate itself. Where did this DNA lab come from, complete with its ability to automatically self-replicate itself?

4. The Cambrian Explosion. 99.9% of all living things showed up in the fossil record a virtually the same time, already fully formed. There is no steady progress in the fossil record to contradict this. Evolutionists realize this problem and have come up with what they call "Punctuated Equilibrium." That's a fancy way for saying that fully-functioning creatures suddenly just appeared in the fossil record. That is hocus-pocus to the highest order.

5. How did evolution survive the death of dinosaurs? When dinosaurs died, the rest of the planet went with it. How did it all come back in such a short time?

 

 

1. First of all, please define what you mean by "nothing". Second, what does this have to do with evolution?

 

2. A lot of science defies logic. Just because you can't conceive of something in your mind, doesn't mean it isn't there. Does the idea the electrons pop in and out of existence randomly make sense? Also again, what does this have to do with evolution? Abiogenesis is only one a quite a few hypothesis on how life on this planet began, and has nothing to do with evolution.

 

3. Have you never heard of RNA? Have you never heard of simple self replicating proteins? This is a classic argument from incredulity; "I can't figure out how it happened so it didn't happen." Or "We (humans) can't explain it, so it must be inexplicable." Sorry, that's not how science works. Biochemistry inevitably produces complex products. Amino acids and other complex molecules are even known to form in space.There are plenty of different ideas people have proposed on this problem and they are actively working on the issue. Again, this isn't evolution, this is in the realm of Abiogenesis.

 

4. When scientists use the word "explosion" they are using it differently from most others. The shortest estimated time span of the Cambrian explosion is 5 million years. Complex life had been discovered in early strata so the cambrian explosion was not the beginning of complex life. We see many transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion. You are completely misrepresenting Professor Gould's hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium, and it's a hypothesis that most biologists reject.

 

5. Not every species went extinct when the dinosaurs did. We evolved from the species that survived.

 

I implore you to read a book about evolution by an actual evolutionary biologist. Even a high school biology text book could probably answer most of your questions.

[NORM]

...I implore you to read a book about evolution by an actual evolutionary biologist. Even a high school biology text book could probably answer most of your questions.

 

I believe that Renewed Faith 1964 has left the building. The old, ID arguments have been pretty soundly debunked, I think. I like the suggestion about the high school biology textbook, however I would add the following caveat: one that was published in this century.

 

NORM

[romansh]

Just make sure it is not written by the Discovery Institute though ...

[romansh]

Quote

Life evolves from simple to complex.

In  a recent post it was claimed as above,

This is fundamentally false.  Life evolves ... there is no particular direction to complex or the less complex. just because Life started off as in less complex does not mean such a trajectory will continue.