Login

Join for Free!
118819 members


Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Re: Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Postby Jameshaner » Wed Feb 02, 2011 5:22 pm

I'm just going to state some basic facts. And I'm 15 years old, so excuse me if I say something incorrect. One strand of DNA would take somewhere around 90 years for a human to construct. In the DNA, Adenine (A) goes to Tymine (T) and Cytosine (C) goes to Guanine (G). If you were to unravel one, single microscopic DNA molecule, it would be 9 feet long. All the DNA in your body from your trillions of cells would stretch out to be approximately 10-20 Billion miles long. One strand of DNA in your body can hold multiple Terabytes of information and is much more complex than an external hardrive, although it is a mere 1/1,000,000,000 of the size. Yet, if someone stuck an external harddrive in front of you and said, "Look what I found fossilized in my backyard", you would never believe them. But DNA Isn't even what's the most amazing. It's the fact that everything around us is only 5% of actual matter. 95% of everything you know is empty space, help together by an invisible force scientists call dark matter. So, every single scientist in the entire world only knows what 5% of everything is. They can't even begin to wrap their mind around the other 95%. If you had an atom with a nucleus the size of a plum, the entire atom would be the size of a baseball field. And these trillions upon trillions upon trillions of spaced-out atoms make up trillions upon trillions of molecules, which create trillions of cells which contain billions of miles of DNA that hold the information to make those trillions of cells form the organism that is you. Now, you tell me that that is all just random happenstance with no purpose. "Billions of years" is what most people would say. But never once has there been a positive change in DNA. The only existing change in DNA is called mutation.

So there's the biological side of it, but the part of everything coming into existence is still left up to question. Honestly, no one was there when it happened, so no one can say exactly what happened. The only existing written proof we have of the beginning of existence is in written in religious documentations. Evolution is essentially assertion derived from evidence that people have found in the modern world. And no one can disagree with this, due to the fact that Darwin assembled the theory of evolution in the 1800's. We have ancient fossils, but none showing evolution actually in process. But, let's assume for a second that evolution is true. Still, creation and evolution are somewhat co-existable. Even if evolution was real, it still needs a start. People claim that the big bang is what started it all. But this would mean that there had to be that infinite piece of matter sitting there, in a vast space of nothing. No other matter, no light, no laws of physics, and as soon as this piece of matter explodes, everything falls into place. It creates all these things along with planets, stars and galaxies. The chances of this one piece of matter, chaotically exploding and creating matter are beyond miniscule. You could simulate a hundred trillion demolition explosions, but you are simply never going to create a car. You wouldn't even end up with a sandwich. Much less a functioning universe.

I know that I'm not completely right in all my beliefs, but I don't believe in Christianity because it feels nice. In fact it can suck watching people with different beliefs have a good time. I went through a time where I really didn't know what I believed. I could have gone either way, but I looked at the evidence and saw what the truth was. I got into a world view class and established that I knew what I believed. And now, I can personally guarantee myself that Christianity is ultimately infallible. I hear stuff all the time that makes me question what I believe, but I don't sit and mope. I go look it up and find out for myself where the evidence points.

That's all I got... Haha

And I know that people are going to excerpt from things I wrote that are untrue, or that they think are wrong. So right now I will just tell you that I don't think I know everything, so please don't go attacking or anything. If you question what I believe and state what you believe on the matter, I will do my best to reply. But if I get insults, I can guarantee you that I will not waste my time on you or your pointless, proud ignominy.
Jameshaner
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:25 pm

Re: Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Postby Jameshaner » Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:11 pm

Wait. I said the only evidence for the beginning is written in religious documents. I realize that most people that are on this forum are atheists so I'm going to re-state that (I don't want to sound like the typical ignorant Theist ;) What I meant was that the only written documentation of the beginning is in religious books or writings. This does not mean that I am assuming that these are true. And I am not specifically referring to Christian Bible. I am saying that these things were written as soon as literacy came around. And all of these things refer to a creation by some sort of creative power. Also, I would think that if evolution was true, then not everything would evolve uniformly. I would think that some things would still be inbetween (who knows, maybe some things are). I probably said more assumptions than I realize, but I am not stating any of my beliefs as universal, infallible truth. I meant that my basic belief of Christianity is infallible to ME. And yes, I do believe that evolution is real because micro-evolution is real. Macro-evolution I find harder to believe, due to the fact that there really is no existing evidence.
Jameshaner
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:25 pm

Postby JackBean » Wed Feb 02, 2011 8:26 pm

OK, let's go point by point:
DNA - not relevant
free space - that's right, but it's not called dark matter. It's simply empty, because the electrons are rejected from each other.
you're right that evolution and creation are actually something totally different.
However, the Big Bang did not create everything as it is now. There was just lot of dust and matter, which later formed into larger pieces forming stars and planets.
and your last point - you know, maybe when you were a kid, you asked your parents how were you born and where does the life come from. And when people didn't know the answers, they were looking for some explanations. And as people were able to create some simple stuff, they thought that someone created them as well.
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5689
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm


Postby JackBean » Thu Feb 03, 2011 7:15 am

oh yeah, I forgot the point about missing the evolution process around us. That's definitelly not true. One just has to open his or her eyes ;)
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5689
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Postby biocomputer » Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:58 am

There have been so many contradicting questions regarding evolution that i come across as i study bio books.

Why rely on carbon dating when it does not give correct results?
Why sometimes lower form of mammals have more genes than higher forms?
Why is everyone trying and trying their best to prove a theory with flaws for such a long time?
If men have evolved from monkeys or apes, then why are they still here? we are more brainy so why does Natural selection still keep them and so many others. Why doesn't natural selection eradicate the harmful microbes in the society.?

Why are there males and females for reproduction? Why did'nt Natural selection retain the asexual reproduction.
A mutation even as a single base pair deletion or substitution causes major sickness and death , but evolutionist claim that changes in the gene for many years lead to favourable characteristics and gradually a new animal evolved. Right before our eyes we see many genetic diseases due to changes in dna and mutation does not lead to gooness.

When Tsunami came in 2005 December, the animals inthe nearby forests did not die because all the animals beforehand ran away up to the mountains but man did not know about the oncoming danger. why? If man is superior and evolved from lower animals , why are there brains superior at these kinds of times?

There is a dinosaur caving in cambodian temple , that totally disapproves evolution.
What about ghosts? why dow

Science is remarkable , with all its findings and inventions but sometimes as there are thorns in roses there are flaws in science, there are stories in science, the story of evolution.

Evolutionists carefully observed everything and concluded that a super power must have created all these things, and that super power they SAW was 'nature' with all its force, magnitude and awesome power.
Creationists saw - some with their own physical eyes, some in their spiritual eyes THE most greatest power, God and so they account all creation to God.
biocomputer
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:07 am

Postby canalon » Fri Feb 11, 2011 9:21 pm

-Carbon dating may lack some precision, and good calibration is necessary, but why do you say it does not give correct result?
-So what, why do you assume that the number of genes means?
-Because it works, mostly. And it is useful to understand many things such as diseases transmission, population history and many other thing. Unlike creationism that do not allow to make any predictions.
-Humans and apes have evolved separately and colonized different niches and the divergence do not require that one branch disappears. However, you should be happy, under the careful human stewardship of our planet, apes might disappear soon. And large and brainy is not necessarily that good. At the game of evolution, the winners are and always were bacteria. Human are just a footnote in the history of life that has always been dominated by the prokaryotes.
-Get down your pedestal, humans are just one species of living creatures, they have very little evolutionary importance. In fact from the natural point of view, you could reverse the question and wonder why the prokaryotes haven't gotten rid of the harmful eukaryotes...

-Why sex? No clue, but once it was there, and probably had some benefits, I guess that reversion was not an option. And natural selection still retain asexual reproduction for many organisms (insects, plant, bacteria,...)
-Mutations are not necessary punctual, full genes even chromosomes can be exchanged and transfer, even between different kingdoms. And mutations are not necessarily deleterious, otherwise considering the error rate of DNA polymerase you would not be there. We might notice the changes that are deleterious, but many are silent, or positive, but I guess that you would not notice them. And remember evolution is random, it does not aim to goodness. But we are still there, so it must have done some things right.
-Evidence of n death among animals? And remember, human are not superior to other creatures, just different, and all creatures are as evolved. Bacteria appear simple, but they are terribly efficient at what they do, what makes you think that you are superior to something that can survive on a nuclear reactor (Deinococcus radiodurans) or at temperatures above 100ºC without light, or at pH close to 14, or in a lake chocfull of arsenic?

-Dinosaur: provide evidence. And even if one had survived, that would not mean anything more than 1 dinosaur had survived. remember evolution act like branches not in a stepwise gradient where one form replace the one before, and will be replaced by the next.

-What about ghosts? They don't exist...

Science has flaws, and that is why it is constantly improving and changing, and things are modified. That is true. But evolution by natural selection, is one of the great stable results that we have and it allowed us to understand a great deal about the living world. Far from being a failure it is the underlying unifying foundation for all current biology.
Scientist observed the world, and concluded that the laws of probability, chemistry and physics were giving a good framework that explained coherently most of what we observe, and that the rest is fascinating to decipher and observe, and that we explain more and more still without adding any supernatural powers.
Creationist saw the world, concluded that it was too complicated (sorry, that the complexity was irreducible) and decided that it must have been created because ignorance is less demanding than careful observation and reasoning. Believing in creation in gods is an act of defeat and intellectual laziness, nothing more.
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Postby kneilandrew » Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:04 am

Can we say that bible is a product of man, so it is exclusive for man. Therefore creation is just an earthly idea and evolution is universal.

:)
kneilandrew
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:02 am

Postby canalon » Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:40 pm

Well the theory of evolution was written by a male human being too... Does not make it less universal
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Postby MillieKittan » Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:52 am

Why rely on carbon dating when it does not give correct results?
Generally, carbon dating can be inaccurate, but at the same time it is a viable form of dating something to a certain degree and is one of the only methods we have at the moment. I'm sure they used much less reliable methods until a new one was thought up by some genius.

Why sometimes lower form of mammals have more genes than higher forms?
I'm sure you are aware that the variable genes themselves, the number of them I mean, should not be considered an indicator of a higher form of life. All animals have a number of HOX genes, for example, the number of which increases with the complexity of the animal. I would probably be a more valid estimate of the complexity of an organism (since lower forms of animals have few or even lack them) and not the extra genes themselves, which code for more specialised developments and changes.

Why is everyone trying and trying their best to prove a theory with flaws for such a long time?
Every theory has flaws, that is why it is called a theory and not the Law of Evolution. Everything in science is first based on some kind of theory or idea, and evolution will probably remain as a theory for the duration of human colonisation, for it has become world renowned in such a name.

If men have evolved from monkeys or apes, then why are they still here? we are more brainy so why does Natural selection still keep them and so many others.
The intelligence of man is a very fickle thing. We feel we are the most intelligent and highest form of life because we have this magnificent brain and have shaped the world in the way we wish it to be, but to be honest that is just as easily a load of bull crud. Either way, if evolution worked in such a way, as to eradicate all of the previous branches of the tree, we would not see all of the lower life forms from which we developed, and there would be far less if not no other creatures upon the earth.
The earlier forms of man are adapted to the habitat the found to live in, and therefore have not been iradicated by natural selection.

Why doesn't natural selection eradicate the harmful microbes in the society?
Natural selection is just that - it removes things that are not adapted to or are unable to live within their chosen environments or even those that are thrust upon it. If you are a pathogenic microbe that thrives in the guts of children and gives them diarrhoea or can infiltrate the T cells of a human and live there in total protection, why would you be wiped out by natural selection? You are obviously very good at what you do.

Why are there males and females for reproduction? Why did'nt Natural selection retain the asexual reproduction.
I assume that the gender split was forced upon multicellular animals when it reached the point of no return - once you have billions of specialised cells all working together to make an organism work, and probably a few stages before this kind of symbiosis too, then asexual reproduction becomes ridiculously unfavourable. You would develop a way to reproduce using some kind of gene-mixing method, and Males and Females is how that occured.

A mutation even as a single base pair deletion or substitution causes major sickness and death , but evolutionist claim that changes in the gene for many years lead to favourable characteristics and gradually a new animal evolved. Right before our eyes we see many genetic diseases due to changes in dna and mutation does not lead to goodness.
The point here being that not every mutation is a good one, but some are very beneficial. Obvious disadvantages in mutations are evident wherever you look in human society, and they often cause severe diseases that can lead to death or terrible ailments and disfigurements, but there are also beneficial ones that are left forgotten because these horrible ones are always making the news. There are people in the world with incredible stamina, longlivity that runs in families that have no disabling illnesses attached, people who can run incredibly fast that set Olympic records and others that have amazing abilities to remember notes and become concert pianists or orchestras.
There are good mutations, you only have to look for them.

When Tsunami came in 2005 December, the animals inthe nearby forests did not die because all the animals beforehand ran away up to the mountains but man did not know about the oncoming danger. why? If man is superior and evolved from lower animals , why are there brains superior at these kinds of times
I once again come back to the point that humans are very intelligent. So intelligent, in fact, that we have reached a point where we try to repress our instincts and sometimes don't even notice them any more. Put simply, animals are much more in tune with the world and disturbances in normal pressures, temperatures and humidity. They notice when things go wrong, whereas we have lost such senses for cognitive ability.
MillieKittan
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:20 am

Postby GnnS » Sun Feb 27, 2011 8:33 am

You asked for it:Microorganisms remained microorganisms for 3 billion years.Zero evolution here.This is evidence against evolution...
GnnS
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:55 pm

Postby MillieKittan » Sun Feb 27, 2011 7:16 pm

That isn't evidence against evolution. For a while there would be no need to diversity above micro-organism, since there is a vast expanse of water that can be colonised before there is any real need to find other food sources.

On top of the that environment of earth when the first micro-organisms appeared and for many years after going anywhere near the surface of the water, and at the very beginning out of localised spots, was very dangerous because of the extreme environments outside. Larger volumes of oxygen also needed to be developed before an animal could think about becoming one with gills (dissolved oxygen in water was also low) or even lungs.

As a final note, saying there was no evolution in those three billion years is untrue. There are an incredible diversity of micro-organisms, all of which would have come from a single starter. This would involve a large amount of evolution and diversification to achieve.
MillieKittan
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:20 am

Postby GnnS » Tue Mar 01, 2011 10:40 am

I have two problems with evolution
1)I dont believe in any type of Abiogenesis since the evidence that support this theory are insufficient(in fact no type of Abiogenesis has ever been observed).So how this "last common ancestor" emerged is a mystery...
2)Organisms are too well "designed" to be the result of passive evolution.I even think some times that irreducible complexity has some points despite the fact that science reject the term
GnnS
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:55 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests