Give me your best shot!

[MewtwoX]

It depends on how you define evolution. My best arguement against evolution is science itself, esp. what they call "evo-devo".

So... a field of Evolutionary Biology is disproving Evolutionary Biology?

I'd love to see how you conclude this...

Also the arguement of explosions and extinctions is a very good arguement against slow gradual random change over time.

Taking into account the fluctuation of genetic development in species? Hopefully, you are not referring to things such as the Pre-Cambrian/Cambrian...

The Bible says that God knows the end from the beginning and now science is beginning to show that is true.

How does Science offer perspectives on propositions about deities? Science is independent of religions and independent of supernatural propositions.

Life tends to radiate more then it evolves. A lot of the things that Gould predicted were going to be of significance.

Define "radiate". I also remind you that the propositions of Punctuated Equilibria are not contradictory to Evolutionary Theory in any way.

Two different postulations on the nature of Evolutionary development.

New information and understanding is coming along so fast now that we can see the old theorys fall off as they are just not adaquate to explain what we currently know about the world we live in. Look at horse evolution for example. That theory has gone though some very radical changes recently. So it has been shown that the old theory is not corrent, just as we said that it was not correct.

Revisions and additions =/= disproof of Evolutionary development.

For your example of Horse development, what has happened is nothing more than a fleshing out of the Phylogeny into a more diversified branch form, not a disproof of Horse evolution.

It's not a line, but a branching of multiple horse species, just like most other organisms we observe today.

 

[grimbly]

Evolution required eons of time to operate --- yet the earth has only been in existence for 6100 years.

Unfortunately, the earth and the universe disagree with you.

 

[dia_liom]

I don't believe in evolution because there's a tendency to return to the original type. (from 'Politically Incorrect Guide to Science' by Tom Bethell p232-233)).

"Experiments began on fruit flies about 100 yars ago, and they have been continuing ever since. With a two-week life cycle, fruit flies are an ideal experimental animal...

In 1926, geneticist Hermann J Muller made the famous discovery that Xrays cause genes to mutate. For a number of years, zapping friut flies with Xrays was assumed to be the most promising way of getting them to evolve into something else- soemthing thwas was not a fruit fly. Hopes were high...

But most of the flied were killed outright, and the offspring that maybe showed some 'incipient' seciation just didn't want to play the game. Muller produced an 'eyeless' fruit fly, but ten generations later, its descendants were found to have reverted to normal. The eyes were back!...

Meanwhile, we continuted to hear from the breeders and horticulturalists, the most famous whom was Luther Burbank. He spent the better part of fifty years hybridizing fruits & plants in Santa Rosa, California. He observaed a quite different 'law'- the law of reversion to the man. Its empiricism stands in shapr contrast to the evolutionists' theoretical but not yet observed 'indefinite departure.'

"I know from my experience that I can develop a plum half an inch long, or one 2.5 inches long, with every possible length in between, but I am willing to admit that it is hopeless to try to get a plum the size of a small pea, or one as big as a grapefruit....

Experiements carried on extensively have given us scientific proof of what we had already guessed by observation; namely, that plants and animals all tend to revert, in successive generations, toward a given mean or average... There is undoubtedly a pull toward the mean which keeps all living things within some more or less fixed limitations.' "

More evidence of this tendency to 'return to the mean' comes from the finches Darwin observed. While their beaks DID increase in size following a severe drought, their beaks returned to normal size when the rain returned. '... In fact, several of these finch species now appear to be merging through hybridization, rather than diverging through natural selection as Darwin's theory requires' (ibid, p 230).

 

[MewtwoX]

I don't believe in evolution because there's a tendency to return to the original type. (from 'Politically Incorrect Guide to Science' by Tom Bethell p232-233)).

"Experiments began on fruit flies about 100 yars ago, and they have been continuing ever since. With a two-week life cycle, fruit flies are an ideal experimental animal...

In 1926, geneticist Hermann J Muller made the famous discovery that Xrays cause genes to mutate. For a number of years, zapping friut flies with Xrays was assumed to be the most promising way of getting them to evolve into something else- soemthing thwas was not a fruit fly. Hopes were high...

But most of the flied were killed outright, and the offspring that maybe showed some 'incipient' seciation just didn't want to play the game. Muller produced an 'eyeless' fruit fly, but ten generations later, its descendants were found to have reverted to normal. The eyes were back!...

Meanwhile, we continuted to hear from the breeders and horticulturalists, the most famous whom was Luther Burbank. He spent the better part of fifty years hybridizing fruits & plants in Santa Rosa, California. He observaed a quite different 'law'- the law of reversion to the man. Its empiricism stands in shapr contrast to the evolutionists' theoretical but not yet observed 'indefinite departure.'

"I know from my experience that I can develop a plum half an inch long, or one 2.5 inches long, with every possible length in between, but I am willing to admit that it is hopeless to try to get a plum the size of a small pea, or one as big as a grapefruit....

Experiements carried on extensively have given us scientific proof of what we had already guessed by observation; namely, that plants and animals all tend to revert, in successive generations, toward a given mean or average... There is undoubtedly a pull toward the mean which keeps all living things within some more or less fixed limitations.' "

More evidence of this tendency to 'return to the mean' comes from the finches Darwin observed. While their beaks DID increase in size following a severe drought, their beaks returned to normal size when the rain returned. '... In fact, several of these finch species now appear to be merging through hybridization, rather than diverging through natural selection as Darwin's theory requires' (ibid, p 230).

Couple problems with the above cut and paste:

1. Induced mutations are ridiculously unlikely to produce a new species, but may produce a variant. The idea that experimenters were trying to use mutagens to produce new species is far fetched. Most of these experiments were most likely done to examine mutations and the basics of genetics in organisms.

From the looks of this article I believe I am correct about Muller's intentions.

http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/resources/timeline/1927_Muller.php

2. "Incipient speciation" isn't how speciation works. In fact, the idea of a single mutation leading to speciation would rare if it happened at all.

3. Mutations such as the "eyeless" mutation and beak sizes would only remain if they were beneficial or (sometimes) neutral. It's no surprise that eyeless mutations (which I don't think means having a defective eye, just a lack of red pigment formation) and beak sizes return to original forms when selection pressure (or lack thereof, in fruitflies) is removed.

4. There is no such thing as a "Law of reversion of the man" as the article claims. Variation in size and other phenotypic traits will depend on a complex of both gene products and the available biological environment the genes are present in.

This is why we can find variants such as these:

EDIT: to make into a link:

http://www.picture-newsletter.com/pumpkin/pumpkin-13.jpg



5. It's not always true that populations will hover around an average level of phenotype (for quantitative phenotypes).

A simple look at disruptive selection on pubmed will reveal examples of disruptive selection.

 

[Gottservant]

The biggest problem is this: I myself have been said to have evolved, yet I don't remember it. If evolution were true, surely the one thing I would remember is having evolved. Without that, it is not about survival at all.

But life isn't just about problems. There is something to hope for and that is that God loved us so much that He sent His Son to do something for which there is zero probability: lay down His life that we might live. Now that He lives again, we can!

To live with Christ in eternity, all you need to do is admit that you are a sinner, one who was capable of believing in lies like evolution and ask Jesus to be Lord of your life. Once you've done that, get baptised - its something that evolution doesn't think is possible but it results in the remission of sins! Every single mutation you have ever been responsible for will be wiped away!

 

[TooCurious]

The biggest problem is this: I myself have been said to have evolved, yet I don't remember it. If evolution were true, surely the one thing I would remember is having evolved. Without that, it is not about survival at all.

Populations evolve, not individuals. Any mutations to your genome would have occured before your mother's egg encountered your father's sperm to conceive you. Do you often remember things that happened before you were conceived?

Every single mutation you have ever been responsible for will be wiped away!

This sentence demonstrates that you are not clear on the concept of genetic mutation.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

Gottservant

The biggest problem is this: I myself have been said to have evolved, yet I don't remember it. If evolution were true, surely the one thing I would remember is having evolved. Without that, it is not about survival at all.

Maybe this is the problem, noone who understands evolution has ever said you have evolved in a biological sense. An individual does not evolve, nor will it ever evolve.

Now in other senses of the word, you can be said to evolve (roll out), but they are not the topic of discussion on this forum.

This may explain why everyone looks at your posts and says HUH, the meaning of the word evolve as you are using it is appropriate to General Apologetics, or one of the Philosophy forums, or maybe even Origins Theology, but not to this forum.

 

[AV1611VET]

What is your BEST argument against evolution?

Here's my 2nd (of 4) argument against evolution, along with a recap of the 1st:

1. Evolution didn't have enough time to operate.
2. God's creation was perfect - thus there's no need for evolution.

[bible]Genesis 1:31[/bible]

 

[TooCurious]

Here's my 2nd (of 4) argument against evolution, along with a recap of the 1st:

1. Evolution didn't have enough time to operate.

The Earth is roughly four and a half billion years old; life had plenty of time.

2. God's creation was perfect - thus there's no need for evolution.
[bible]Genesis 1:31[/bible]

Since when does "very good" = perfect?

Also, hasn't the environment of the world changed since then? I would think you'd attribute this to something like "the Fall," but changes HAVE occured, right?

 

[Pikachu]

Here's my 2nd (of 4) argument against evolution, along with a recap of the 1st:

1. Evolution didn't have enough time to operate.
2. God's creation was perfect - thus there's no need for evolution.

[bible]Genesis 1:31[/bible]

Alrighty then. What is your idea of "enough time" for evolution to occur? Evolution occurs, so there is no need for god to create anything.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Earth is roughly four and a half billion years old...

I have no problem with that.

...life had plenty of time.

That I have a problem with. The earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old, but has only been in existence for 6100 years.

God embedded age into it when He created it.

Since when does "very good" = perfect?

When you think of it in terms of gestalt.

Six times God pronounced His specific creation "good":

1. [bible]Genesis 1:4[/bible]
2. [bible]Genesis 1:10[/bible]
3. [bible]Genesis 1:12[/bible]
4. [bible]Genesis 1:18[/bible]
5. [bible]Genesis 1:21[/bible]
6. [bible]Genesis 1:25[/bible]

Then when He's finished, He steps back and pronounces it all "very good":

• [bible]Genesis 1:31[/bible]

Thus the whole is greater than the sum of its parts (gestalt).

Another way is to look at it like this:

• What God calls "good", no instrument ever made will be able to find a flaw in it.

Also, hasn't the environment of the world changed since then?

Yes.

I would think you'd attribute this to something like "the Fall," but changes HAVE occured, right?

Right.

 

[AV1611VET]

Alrighty then. What is your idea of "enough time" for evolution to occur? Evolution occurs, so there is no need for god to create anything.

Without eons of time, man could not have descended from the apes.

Time itself, has only been in operation for 6100 years.

Unless you want to say that God embedded time into time--- and He didn't --- He embedded age, not time.

 

[Avatar]

Alrighty then. What is your idea of "enough time" for evolution to occur? Evolution occurs, so there is no need for god to create anything.

Except for the universe with all its properties. One being the possibility of evolution.

 

[Pikachu]

Without eons of time, man could not have descended from the apes.

Time itself, has only been in operation for 6100 years.

Unless you want to say that God embedded time into time--- and He didn't --- He embedded age, not time.

6100 years? What, then, was the event that brought time into existence so recently?

 

[Pikachu]

Except for the universe with all its properties. One being the possibility of evolution.

The simple fact that the universe exists does not necessitate its creation by any god.

 

[Valgaav]

Agreed, Pikachu.

I hate when people say that earth could ONLY have been created with a purpose, as random chance is just so unlikely.

That argument is literally "flowers are pretty, therefore god exists".

 

[Valgaav]

That I have a problem with. The earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old, but has only been in existence for 6100 years.

Uh, no. If it's 4.5 billion years old, then you'd better believe it's been in existence for 4.5 billion years.

 

[Pikachu]

Agreed, Pikachu.

I hate when people say that earth could ONLY have been created with a purpose, as random chance is just so unlikely.

That argument is literally "flowers are pretty, therefore god exists".

Yeah, too true. It always seems to boil down to:

P1: The universe exists.
P2: I can't understand how it could have happened without a god
C1: god exists.
C2: goddidit.

 

[Avatar]

Agreed, Pikachu.

I hate when people say that earth could ONLY have been created with a purpose, as random chance is just so unlikely.

That argument is literally "flowers are pretty, therefore god exists".

And where does random chance come from? How can nothing become something becuase of this 'chance' dealy?

 

[Valgaav]

And where does random chance come from? How can nothing become something becuase of this 'chance' dealy?

It didn't. Something became something. Look at the law of conservation of matter and energy. Matter can neither be created or destroyed - only converted.