Login

Join for Free!
118820 members


Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Re: Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Postby alextemplet » Sun May 31, 2009 1:23 am

futurezoologist wrote:No Alex, not how do I know what Adam and Eves race was, how the writers of genesis knew what their race was, they knew they were white,


Wrong; the Bible never once indicates what Adam and Eve's race might have been.

futurezoologist wrote:(off topic a bit, just a quick question i have: if Adam and Eve only had sons who did they reproduce with to produce more people?)


According to Genesis, Adam and Eve also had daughters.

futurezoologist wrote:A lot. if Christians do not believe in the mutation of new genes then how do they suppose a new race came into play.


Okay I see your point now. Although I would like to point out that the majority of Christianity (mainly Catholic and Orthodox denominations) have never had anything against evolutionary theory; it is only within the last five hundred years or so that a very vocal minority of Christian churches has tried to enforce a more literal interpretation of the Biblical creation stories. As far as we know, there is no evidence that the early Christians or even Christ Himself subscribed to such literalist ideologies.

futurezoologist wrote:Wait minute... then why are we debating? The original question i posted referred to any arguments with natural selection and other forms of evolution. If the bibles are now accepting that their god had already thought of natural selection and was the creator of it but they had not yet derived the symbolism in their scriptures to let them know this(as is usually the case)... then what is this argument about?


I agree with you here; there is no reason a Christian cannot accept both God and evolution. In fact, for the past two thousand years, the majority of Christian churches have done exactly that.

futurezoologist wrote:This is my view of the bible.


If you'll forgive me saying so, it would appear from some of your posts that you have a very poor knowledge of the Bible. Might I suggest that you refrain from judging a book you haven't read?

AstusAleator wrote:Cultural norms have probably shaped the idea for many that biblical characters shared european traits.


Very true; artists have traditionally painted Biblical figures to look like their own race. It is by no means universal to depict Biblical characters as European, however; if you examine African Christian art, for example, many African artists paint Biblical characters to be black. If I absolutely had to identify a race or ethnicity for any Biblical figures, I would say Hebrew for most of them.

AFJ wrote:NS and evolution are not necessarily synonymous. NS has been observed . . .


You're right that natural selection and evolution are not synonymous, but it is not correct to say that natural selection has been observed. Evolution is what has been observed; natural selection is simply a theory attempting to explain how the phenomenon of evolution works.

AFJ wrote:Im not a nuclear physicist so I'm asking. How much hydrogen would it take for the sun to burn for 4.5 billion years? I know this goes against theory but it seems like if the sun were really that old it would have had to be much bigger at on time ---just for the simple fact of the amount of hydrogen it would take if it has burnt that long. But even though measurements do show the sun to be shrinking, it is supposed to expand until about 10 billion years and become a red giant. Inconceivable.


So you admit that you're not an astrophysicist, and go on to claim that the proposed life cycle of a star must be impossible because you are unable to understand it? I'm not astrophysicist either (If I was I would try to answer your question.), so I'd just like to point out that this sounds a lot like saying that I'm not an auto mechanic, so I don't understand how the engine in my car runs, and because I don't understand it, it must be impossible for my car to operate. Hm, wonder how I'm able to drive it then?

AFJ wrote:But this would take vast amounts of time also, as your theory says. Being that evolution would take so much time it seems that the populations would get so large that there would be evidence of it in our crust, seeing they would overpopulate and then regulate through lack of resources, catastophe, or disease. Most of the crust is silicon and oxygen, with of course all the other elements and compounds.


Wait a minute . . . How do you know that a species would overpopulate the entire earth before it would be able to evolve? This makes absolutely no sense. There are plenty of natural factors at work here (such as predation and disease) that work to help keep a species's population levels down.

AFJ wrote:Cyanobacteria are still here after supposedly 2.8 billion years.


You still haven't answered my question as to why they should be anything else.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby alextemplet » Sun May 31, 2009 1:36 am

alextemplet wrote:According to Genesis, Adam and Eve also had daughters.


I would like to add one thought real quick, and my apologies if this isn't really relevant. I'd just like to say that this is one of the biggest reasons why I have never been able to accept a literal interpretation of Genesis. Incest like that would've killed humanity off pretty quickly. Don't believe me? Just take a trip to Mississippi. ;)
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby AstusAleator » Sun May 31, 2009 8:01 am

Two good books:

The Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner (NS and adaptation in Finches)
The Island of the Colorblind by Oliver Sacks (founder effect, genetic drift)

alextemplet wrote:You're right that natural selection and evolution are not synonymous, but it is not correct to say that natural selection has been observed. Evolution is what has been observed; natural selection is simply a theory attempting to explain how the phenomenon of evolution works.


Huh?

NS and Evolution have been observed... NS is a process not a theory. There is a theory "Theory of Natural Selection" that attempts to explain the process. Lets not mangle words here. It's bad enough we're into religion, lets not start playing with semantics.
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"
User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA


Re: Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Postby futurezoologist » Sun May 31, 2009 8:55 am

Wrong; the Bible never once indicates what Adam and Eve's race might have been.


Yes alex your right, in our current day and age the bible wouldn't dare do such a thing, funny thing is though is that the bible can have its meanings miraculously changed when it is getting 'translated' from language to language, especially if it were beneficial to the ones who translated it...


If you'll forgive me saying so, it would appear from some of your posts that you have a very poor knowledge of the Bible. Might I suggest that you refrain from judging a book you haven't read?


Well you have got me on the back foot there as i may not have actually read the bible myself, but i have grown up with teachers and others telling me of how Jesus made wine, healed people, walked on water, came back from the dead etc. etc. and unless they were all lying then does my judgment not stand? Could making wine from water not be related to elephants with eight heads?


NS has been observed but it has been seen to be temporary --that is when stressful environmental factors take place the population of a species may exhibit certain traits more dominantly. This is because certain traits may not enable certain organisms to survive under certain conditions. When less stressful factors return so do the original variety of traits. I would have to do some hunting to find the research, but I have read it. It had to do with bird beaks and it was couple who had actually done the research for quite a number of years. Forgive my vagueness.


Yes. they return to their original state when the stress is alleviated because the trait which helped them survive at the time of environmental stress may have been a burden on them, therefore less chance of survival/pass genes so the trait slowly diminishes. What is the problem here, i do not understand?

On the other hand, it is much more logical that complex systems or objects of any kind show design and therefore are designed and therefore have a designer.


BAH, Here we go again with logic. ITS NOT MORE LOGICAL, its just easier to understand.

Im not a nuclear physicist so I'm asking. How much hydrogen would it take for the sun to burn for 4.5 billion years? I know this goes against theory but it seems like if the sun were really that old it would have had to be much bigger at on time ---just for the simple fact of the amount of hydrogen it would take if it has burnt that long. But even though measurements do show the sun to be shrinking, it is supposed to expand until about 10 billion years and become a red giant. Inconceivable.


Google it before you make such outrageous comments, larger volume does not mean larger mass, it is quite conceivable.

“The Hemoglobin number,”-- that is the number of different ways you can arrange the molecules that form Hemoglobin. There are more ways to arrange them than there are atoms in the universe, but there are only 5 ways that work! What are the odds that evolution happened? Not a chance!


There is infact a chance, one that is much greater than you say (see attached picture of a hemoglobin molecule) i could not fit enough zeros on this page to account for the number of atoms in my body(slight exaggeration) and you are saying that this molecule could be arranged as many times as there are atoms in the universe? 90% of arrangements would not work because of electrostatic attraction and repulsion so your left with say 10% of the arrangements and all the time in the world... Also on googling "the hemoglobin number" the only website i found that referred to it was "blogs.answersingenesis.org/museum/"... another genesis site.


PS one quick question, how do you make the quoter's name appear at the top of the quote?
Attachments
Hem.JPG
Hem.JPG (9.25 KiB) Viewed 26870 times
A wise man once said to me:
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

Only the fittest chickens cross the road.
User avatar
futurezoologist
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: Western Australia

Re: Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Postby AFJ » Sun May 31, 2009 8:35 pm

You're right that natural selection and evolution are not synonymous, but it is not correct to say that natural selection has been observed. Evolution is what has been observed; natural selection is simply a theory attempting to explain how the phenomenon of evolution works.


Alex, I do have to say I appreciate your dedication to evolutionary theory, even though you have never seen bacteria or archaens or protists go through the process of becoming man. You keep speaking of evolution as though the entire process has been observed before your eyes.

There is no way to test events of the past which have been presented in numerous hypotheses that came from speculative "put forwards." The rest of it comes from the interpretations of the evidence by people who have been completely indoctrinated in the theory since 4th grade-- with no rebuttal whatsoever. Just remember the first side always seems right--Proverbs even says that.

Darwin took adaptation principles that God put in his creatures for survival and credited his theory with this discovery.

The biggest problem with evolution is the vast time, yet you need it. The cambrian explosion, the sun having burnt for 4.5 billion years i.e. the quantity of H, and the world population are all arguments against an old earth and/or evolution. Check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY3c4NXPiZ4&feature=related
AFJ
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:59 pm

Re: Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Postby AFJ » Sun May 31, 2009 9:30 pm

Fzoologist wrote
There is infact a chance, one that is much greater than you say (see attached picture of a hemoglobin molecule) i could not fit enough zeros on this page to account for the number of atoms in my body(slight exaggeration) and you are saying that this molecule could be arranged as many times as there are atoms in the universe? 90% of arrangements would not work because of electrostatic attraction and repulsion so your left with say 10% of the arrangements and all the time in the world... Also on googling "the hemoglobin number" the only website i found that referred to it was "blogs.answersingenesis.org/museum/"... another genesis site.


FZ, I'm not sure what you are asking, or perhaps you took the statement ambiguously. Are you understanding this as if Dr. Menton was saying there are a vast number of ways to arrange the atoms and hemoglobin still be functional?

No. He was saying they could be arranged randomly that number in primary structure, not secondarily, nor tertiarily, nor quaternarily as hemoglobin does. He was simply saying that primarily if you took the single atoms out of their amino acid arrangements, they could bond a vast number of ways, I mean it's all H, C, O, N, and S, the last 4 having alot of valency.

By the way, I'm not sure if you have the entire molecule in your diagram. It is made up of 4 different alpha helices. At any rate it is vastly oversimplified and does not show the secondary or quaternary structure of hemoglobin.
AFJ
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:59 pm

Postby alextemplet » Sun May 31, 2009 10:36 pm

AstusAleator wrote:NS and Evolution have been observed... NS is a process not a theory. There is a theory "Theory of Natural Selection" that attempts to explain the process. Lets not mangle words here. It's bad enough we're into religion, lets not start playing with semantics.


You've got me a little confused here, because I've always understood evolution to be the process and natural selection to be the theory. I'm not quite sure how natural selection differs from "theory of natural selection." I'm inclined to take your word because you've got the degree and I'm still an undergrad, but perhaps you'd like to expand on this?

futurezoologist wrote:Well you have got me on the back foot there as i may not have actually read the bible myself, but i have grown up with teachers and others telling me of how Jesus made wine, healed people, walked on water, came back from the dead etc. etc. and unless they were all lying then does my judgment not stand? Could making wine from water not be related to elephants with eight heads?


All I'm saying is that, if you want people to take your posts seriously, you should make sure to check your facts first. Makings statements that are obviously false, such as your claim that the Bible claims Adam and Eve were white, only makes you look ignorant. Even a quick search on Google or Wikipedia should give you a decent background knowledge to avoid such wildly innaccurate statements.

AFJ wrote:You keep speaking of evolution as though the entire process has been observed before your eyes.

There is no way to test events of the past which have been presented in numerous hypotheses that came from speculative "put forwards."


So once again you are suggesting that all law enforcement agencies should be disbanded, because if there's no way to tell for sure what happened in the past, then detectives and historians and anyone else involved in studying the past are all just blowing smoke and mirrors. Sorry, but this is just plain false.

AFJ wrote:Darwin took adaptation principles that God put in his creatures for survival and credited his theory with this discovery.


I think you might want to read up on what exactly evolution is, because it basically comes down to species adapting to their environment. If you admit that God has given organisms the ability to adapt to their environment, then you have already admitted that He has given them the ability to evolve.

AFJ wrote:The biggest problem with evolution is the vast time, yet you need it.


Yet we already know that the universe is old enough; otherwise we wouldn't be able to see stars at night.

AFJ wrote:The cambrian explosion, the sun having burnt for 4.5 billion years i.e. the quantity of H, and the world population are all arguments against an old earth and/or evolution.


The cambrian explosion question has been answered before, and I am not sure how the sun's age or the world population have anything to do with this. Perhaps you could explain your questions in a bit more detail?

AFJ wrote:He was simply saying that primarily if you took the single atoms out of their amino acid arrangements, they could bond a vast number of ways,


That's true but you have to consider how many different ways atoms bond naturally. You can't just randomly mix two chemicals and expect to get a certain product; there's all sorts of limitations on how atoms and molecules react with one another. After all, if there weren't, I'd expect my last course in organic chem would've been much simpler!

AFJ wrote:I mean it's all H, C, O, N, and S, the last 4 having alot of valency.


I'm going to assume you don't know what "valency" means, because hydrogen does not have a lot of valency! It can only bond to one other atom. Oxygen and sulfur can each bond to two other atoms, nitrogen to three, and carbon to four. These numbers all have to do with the number of valence electrons each atom has, and they put an absolute limit on the number of different ways a molecule can be arranged.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Re: Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Postby futurezoologist » Mon Jun 01, 2009 12:35 am

He was simply saying that primarily if you took the single atoms out of their amino acid arrangements, they could bond a vast number of ways, I mean it's all H, C, O, N, and S, the last 4 having alot of valency.


A vast number of ways yes, but i think that you think it is much more than it is, you haven't taken into account polar bonds(of which there are a lot in hemoglobin due to H, N, O), the stress put on any random structure from this imbalance alone would cancel at least half of the possibilities. Also you have to remember in the early atmosphere-lots of heat from volcanism,lots of lightning.Also solubility would limit the number of combinations, many of the combinations would be soluble in water so they would not bond.



By the way, I'm not sure if you have the entire molecule in your diagram. It is made up of 4 different alpha helices. At any rate it is vastly oversimplified and does not show the secondary or quaternary structure of hemoglobin.


Yes sorry about that but it is really that simple, once a helix gets started it will only attract ions which fit into its pattern, and if say a Na(despite it being soluble when bonded to almost anything) fits in where a H should have it will soon cause too much stress on the structure and break.



Makings statements that are obviously false, such as your claim that the Bible claims Adam and Eve were white, only makes you look ignorant. Even a quick search on Google or Wikipedia should give you a decent background knowledge to avoid such wildly innaccurate statements.


I didn't claim the bible said that...you are relying on the current bible(and Wikipedia for that matter) being untainted through their years of change, when the bible was put together there were no printers... each copy had to be rewritten with a quill, and then there are different versions, and as i said before, translators, there is very rarely and exact match between words in a language for example the word fish in one language may may only have a translation in another language that means sea creatures. All of these are mechanisms for mistakes, misinterpretations and changing documents for the betterment of the religion.
In the time of Jesus blacks were seen as slaves and had been for the last thousand years, correct me if I'm wrong but did they even see blacks as having souls? Why then would they give a black the title of being the first or second person on earth?
A wise man once said to me:
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

Only the fittest chickens cross the road.
User avatar
futurezoologist
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: Western Australia

Postby alextemplet » Mon Jun 01, 2009 12:49 am

futurezoologist wrote:.you are relying on the current bible(and wikipedia for that matter) being untainted through their years of change


Given that a very good record of primary sources exists going all the way back to at least the Babylonian exile, we can be very certain that the Scriptures that exists today are the same as they were over two thousand years ago. You are right that some translations are more accurate than others, but this is why any respectable Church bases its doctrines on the original language. Anyway, your claim:

futurezoologist wrote:I didnt claim the bible said that


is wrong, because you did claim exactly that:

No Alex, not how do I know what Adam and Eves race was, how the writers of genesis knew what their race was, they knew they were white,


You did make this claim, and it is false. This is why I suggested you make sure to do a little research before posting.

futurezoologist wrote:In the time of jesus blacks were seen as slaves and had been for the last thousand years, correct me if im wrong but did they even see blacks as having souls?


The wide-spread enslavement of Africans by Europeans didn't begin until at least the 16th century; in the time of Jesus, most slaves were the same race as their owners. I am also unaware of any statement that blacks did not have souls; in fact I would find that highly doubtful considering that there is Biblical evidence of Ethiopians (the only mostly-black nation mentioned in the Bible) receiving baptism and other such passages that show a degree of racial equality that did not exist in later centuries. Queen Sheba, for example, whom the Bible praises for her wisdom, was almost certainly black. Can you cite a source for this supposed racial disparity?
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Re: Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Postby AFJ » Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:23 am

A vast number of ways yes, but i think that you think it is much more than it is, you haven't taken into account polar bonds(of which there are a lot in hemoglobin due to H, N, O), the stress put on any random structure from this imbalance alone would cancel at least half of the possibilities.


By polar bonds you are I believe referring to dipole-dipole bonds. Most amino acids are made of hydrogen bonds, with one end being acid H+ and the other basic OH-. This why they bond through dehydration synthesis--the H+ and the OH- bond to make H2O and making the carboxl and the ammonium ends to bond.

However if in a random structure dipole-dipole would come into play. I don't know who did the numbers on this, all I can say is Dr. Menton who made the quote is a PhD in cell biology. There have been articles on the odds of evolution happening, though. This is just one illustration.

Also you have to remember in the early atmosphere-lots of heat from volcanism,lots of lightning.Also solubility would limit the number of combinations, many of the combinations would be soluble in water so they would not bond.


Lots of heat because there was so much CO2 from the volcanoes, I believe methane, N and water vapor predominately. The O2 allegedly didn't come into being until blue green algae produced it. My question is how did the water vapor ever condense with all that greenhouse effect. We are worried about global warming now with less than 1% CO2 in the atmosphere. Venus is a good example --the atmosphere is mostly CO2 and N and the avg temp is 467 C!!

If there was enough water vapor there to fill the oceans then it would have added to the greenhouse gases. No condensation, no water and lots of heat--no life unless you say archaens (extremeophiles) were first--but bacteria fossils are supposedly oldest. And I believe even archaens are found in watery environments. You can study alot of this stuff on the Berkley website under geologic timescale.

This is another theory repetitively taught in the schools as though there is no dispute, but you can see the problems.
AFJ
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:59 pm

Postby alextemplet » Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:35 am

AFJ wrote:My question is how did the water vapor ever condense with all that greenhouse effect.


This is why sea levels were probably much lower back then.

AFJ wrote:no life unless you say archaens (extremeophiles) were first--but bacteria fossils are supposedly oldest. And I believe even archaens are found in watery environments.


Archaeans are found in a wide variety of habitats, not all of them underwater. Also, plenty of bacteria are extremophiles, too. As for distinguishing between the two in microscopic fossils, I'm not quite sure how to go about this; perhaps someone else can answer that question better than I can.

AFJ wrote:This is another theory repetitively taught in the schools as though there is no dispute, but you can see the problems.


There are always problems with every theory; those that are taught in schools are taught because they fit the available evidence better than anything else we can come up with. When new theories are discovered, old ones are set aside. This is how science works.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Re: Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Postby AFJ » Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:41 am

I'm going to assume you don't know what "valency" means, because hydrogen does not have a lot of valency! It can only bond to one other atom.


Thats why I said the last 4 have more valency--I did not include hydrogen. It might comfort you to know that I do my homework (lol). I can read a diagram and see the # of bonds each element has and I also know why they do without looking in my chemistry book Alex. Because of the rule of 8 or octave rule on the elemental table, most elements want to fill up their orbitals. O and S are an "octave" apart and have two places left on their p orbitals. How did I do? I have alot to learn but I know the fundamentals.
AFJ
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:59 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest