Proof of design and impossibility of evolution.

[AskTheFamily]

So you're cool with children debating whether or not the holocaust happened?

Yes.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

I posted this, or at least I thought I posted it, but I must have closed my browser before... AskTheFamily, I applaud your effort. Tough topic to tackle. What if someone told you that God as we believe Him is an ALIEN (Extra-terrestrial) entity and this was all an alien conspiracy? How do you answer that?

 

[Cute Tink]

I don't have a problem with that, but 1/10000th wing would not give a small advantage in jumping but even reduce air resistance as you got some useless flesh, and this keeps lumping on top of each other, till one day, it becomes useful to glide? Ofcourse not, natural selection doesn't explain this, because it's not even not simply not advantageous, it's disadvantageous to have 1/1000 wing that don't provide an extra glide or jump or anything.

Your thinking of something appearing designed, that it helps glide, it would take a long process to get there, and that long process to be an advantage each step, but it's not, it's useless.

That is why a wing is impossible.

Now a wing is just one thing, how about what was said about a system? What about an ear? What good is 1/100 of an ear? or 1/10 of an ear?

Why does everything have to the exact use that it eventually evolves to? I addressed this point specifically for the wing a few posts ago. Why does the 1/100000 of a wing have to function as a wing?

 

[IzzyPop]

I posted this on RichardDawkin's site but it has not been approved, I got impatient and decided to post it here:


By the Name of God.

I think this century people tend to sell their minds to people and stick to cliches and slogans without every deeply thinking about a matter.

Evolution is not a new thing of this century. In many times before that, there existed Atheists, whom believe the universe didn't have a Creator and Designer. They existed long before Darwin. Of course they didn't believe when they looked at animals that they popped into design out of no where, but that process took place that lead to this. The details of their theory there was none and they also had no idea how complicated life was.

Evolution does not equal atheism. The first is a process or the theory explaining the process. The other is a stand on the existence of God. They are not that easy to confuse.

Now the issue is natural selection in itself a possible explanation to the many signs of a Designer and Creator we see?

We?

Take for example the Bird. I really think we should think about this. I'm not going to go into the detail of how the lungs and other things all must correspond to fly, but let's simple talk about the issue of wings and flight.

Micro evolution never provides a huge significant change in one generation. It's suppose to be minor changes that over a very long period of time that leads up to a positive change with help of the mechanism of natural selection.

Now 1/10 wing or anything in development, won't even glide let alone fly. It provides virtually no advantage at all.

You said it. 'Virtually no advantage' would confer a slight advantage. This slight advantage could be enough to make a difference.

Thus natural selection doesn't apply here. It would not get fined tuned. This an example we can easily relate to.

However there is countless instances of this in creation. There is countless things that inbetween stages of it are of absolutely no advantage.

An ear for example that doesn't work, there is no advantage at all of having an ear that doesn't work. Either it has to be developped fully to work or it isn't.

Sensing large vibrations through the air confers no advantage? So a minor mutation that is able to pick up a wider range of vibrations or smaller vibrations would convey no advantage?

This is now an argument that applies in all ages. It his the basis of the theory.

Not really. Mutation and natural selection is the mechanism, not the basis. DNA, population dispersion, morphology, and/or fossil record is the basis.

We can apply this thinking to many things that really, we should ask , why have we lucked out so much? Take for example fruits. We see trees without fruits are more numerous. There is really no need of developing fruits through stages, as they are not advantage over the non-fruit trees which are more spread and numerous.

So how do we have fruits? Indeed fruits are sign of a Creator.

Not really. Fruits are a pretty good way to spread seeds. They even get deposited some distance away in a nice pile of fertilizer. Some fruit seeds will not even germinate without passing through the digestive tract of an animal.

And if we ponder over ridable animals. What are the chances we ever get them? Think about it. It's still a very low chance that ridable animals exist in the 1st place out of the many animals that exist. Yet we have them. And what would mankind do without them.

Domesticated plants and animals prove evolution! The simple fact that we can breed for certain features shows how selection can have a profound impact on a species.

Then think about many things we use. Like Iron, etc. All this didn't have to be here. Yet we have them and they are of us. All this is sign of a Creator and Designer.

And now we stray from evolution. If we didn't have iron, we would have used something else.

It's the way you choose to think. Things add up. Now there is aside from this other logical proof of a Creator. But I am simply talking about design of things.

The water in a depression molds itself to fit the contours of the depression and that means it was Designed?

There is also the golden ratio which we should really think about. Why are things not far away from the golden ratio but about there with it. Things would look ugly without the golden ratio. Yet through creation, we see constantly, the golden ratio. Is this not a proof of creator. If things were all to chance, you would expect some super ugly far from golden ratio things also survive and make it. So the beauty in creation is another sign. We don't see abominable creation, we see everything designed on the golden ratio which is a huge sign of a designer.

Everything? Large order there. Even one thing would send it tumbling down.

Now a cell as we know is very complicated like a city. There is no way this could have come through random process. This is not appeal to ignorance we say this, it's knowledge of design. And not only did it have to form, but it had to replicate itself, and be able to survive.

Um, it is an argument from ignorance. Sorry.

Now if we think about so many things, like, just our tongue and various sounds we make. Our mind and the logic we have.

When did "logic" first develop? All sorts of these questions in which we will recognize there is a Desinger. Logic is not a simple issue. It covers so many things and applies to so many things. However inbetween stage of illogic and logic is useless. If things were illogical and didn't rationalize what they saw, it would be useless. There is ofcourse stages of conciousness and use of logic, but logic itself again is something that is either there or not.

I don't understand this one. Pass.

If we think about the matter deeply, when we think marcoevolution, natural selection doesn't really prove anything. This specially when we consider that mutations simply change what is already there and don't really add new entire things.

Except for the ability to eat nylon. Or for E. coli to use citrate.

Now if we ponder over the many fruits and vegetables we have, we all have to admit, this didn't have to be all here. How does this not count for design? Some fruits, but this many, when trees without fruits are doing better then trees with fruits? So how does natural selection cover this? It doesn't.

Not when we have domesticated them, you are right.

1/10 development of wings can't be advantage so it shows there is a Designer.

Birds prove a Creator. Now microevolution I have no problem with. However, even to say that is random is not fair. Mircoevolution occurs because of a design in nature. This is why it occurs. However the line "give it enough time, micro evolution becomes macroevolution" is rhetoric and is not been proved to be possible in any instance that is claimed to have happened.

I gave a simple example of a bird because we can all relate to it. There is all sorts of things that the same logic applies, and this includes systems working together, a half system will entirely fail when everything has a use. A useless thing will never be part of it, because natural selection would pick it out. So either everything in a system has to be working together or not. For example, lungs that don't work are of no use. All the other parts that are in need of lungs and work with it, are of no use without it.

Irreducable complexity is nothing more than an argument from ignorance.

So if we really think about nature, it's clearly evident there is a Desinger. Be humble about it and don't call Creationist stupid and what not.

Even if somehow (it's impossible but for sake of argument) that evolution was possible without a designer, there is a lot of things that still can prove a Creator. So where is the haste in concluding there is no proof of a Creator?

Haste? 10,000 years of scientific exploration is haste?

Let's keep thinking and not get be put down by people claiming to be more intelligent then the average person. We shouldn't be afraid to think and ponder just because we don't have as much knowledge in science.


------


What do Atheists have to say?

Get more knowledge in science. There are tons of resources available on the Web for you to pick up more knowledge.

 

[AskTheFamily]

I posted this, or at least I thought I posted it, but I must have closed my browser before... AskTheFamily, I applaud your effort. Tough topic to tackle. What if someone told you that God as we believe Him is an ALIEN (Extra-terrestrial) entity and this was all an alien conspiracy? How do you answer that?

Well the proof of Divinity and it's Ones lies in the Signs in the Soul and knowledge of the Holy Sacred beautiful Names of God that are brought down up creation, so it would lie in metaphysical proof which is my opinion a Stronger Proof for God as well it proves his Oneness. However, I realize with Atheists, they will not accept metaphysical proofs because they deny morality when they realize for it be to be absolute it has to have Eternal Basis, they deny honor, highness, purity, etc, etc... whenever their souls realize it proves the Eternal.

 

[Ayersy]

No they aren't.


I don't expect you guys to believe in anything when you deny your own soul that you witness every day and say you have no soul, just cells and chemicals, so I don't expect you to believe I will admit defeat if it should come.

From what I have read, you believe microevolution is true. So why not macroevolution? Lots of small changes over the course of a long time equals one big change. You can't pick and choose what you want. Either you believe evolution is true, or you don't. You can't just say macroevolution isn't real simply because it doesn't fit your worldview.

The two are connected, hell, there's only one letter's difference between the two.

 

[Cute Tink]

However, I realize with Atheists, they will not accept metaphysical proofs because they deny morality when they realize for it be to be absolute it has to have Eternal Basis, they deny honor, highness, purity, etc, etc... whenever their souls realize it proves the Eternal.

First, your attack on atheists shows how weak you feel your position is.

Second, deny morality? Deny honor? Highness? Purity? I guess if you are out to lose credibility, might as well go all the way.

 

[AskTheFamily]

You said it. 'Virtually no advantage' would confer a slight advantage. This slight advantage could be enough to make a difference.

I meant no advantage at all.

Sensing large vibrations through the air confers no advantage? So a minor mutation that is able to pick up a wider range of vibrations or smaller vibrations would convey no advantage?

It would be hearing if it can receive vibrations and convey it. An ear that cannot pick up vibrations is useless, am I correct? So it had to be able to pick vibrations and not only that, but the brain analyzing it and making use of it. There could not have been a process to lead to this with blind chance and natural selection.

Not really. Mutation and natural selection is the mechanism, not the basis. DNA, population dispersion, morphology, and/or fossil record is the basis.

DNA is just a matter of how you look at things. Fossil evidence, there is lack of evidence in fossil evidence and it's all imagination that fills the gaps.

Not really. Fruits are a pretty good way to spread seeds.

Yet trees without fruits are doing better? So no advantage of fruits over none-fruits, so how do you explain the numerous fruits we have?

Domesticated plants and animals prove evolution! The simple fact that we can breed for certain features shows how selection can have a profound impact on a species.

I have no problem with this type of stuff. Just because one type of change can occur, doesn't mean anything can become anything. And the latter has been proven impossible.

Irreducable complexity is nothing more than an argument from ignorance.

Proof? I showed my reasoning, show how it's flawed.

 

[AskTheFamily]

First, your attack on atheists shows how weak you feel your position is.

Second, deny morality? Deny honor? Highness? Purity? I guess if you are out to lose credibility, might as well go all the way.

they accept it, till they realize it proves something they don't want it to prove (God).

They they go re-invent what morality means, re-invent terms to mean whole new things.

 

[Cute Tink]

they accept it, till they realize it proves something they don't want it to prove (God).

They they go re-invent what morality means, re-invent terms to mean whole new things.

Asserting you know what an entire group of people think and why they do things is irrational.

I'll take this as my cue to depart from this discussion with you.

 

[AskTheFamily]

From what I have read, you believe microevolution is true. So why not macroevolution? Lots of small changes over the course of a long time equals one big change.

But not all types of big changes. They can have big changes but not all types of changes are possible.

As for why not macroevolution, I shown why. As for having to accept both, as both become possible, this is blind cliche, and rhetoric that has become dogma of blind people rejecting their Creator despite the evidence of a Designer.

I didn't attack mutations and change, I showed specific things that cannot be explained by this process of mutations and natural selection.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Oh, dear...

AskTheFamily, I would suggest that you post your refutation in the Creation & Evolution forum, because the people there are best qualified to tear your post down.

EDIT:

I figured I would answer the OP anyway:

Now the issue is natural selection in itself a possible explanation to the many signs of a Designer and Creator we see?

There are no signs, so yes.

Take for example the Bird. I really think we should think about this. I'm not going to go into the detail of how the lungs and other things all must correspond to fly, but let's simple talk about the issue of wings and flight.

Micro evolution never provides a huge significant change in one generation. It's suppose to be minor changes that over a very long period of time that leads up to a positive change with help of the mechanism of natural selection.

Now 1/10 wing or anything in development, won't even glide let alone fly. It provides virtually no advantage at all. Thus natural selection doesn't apply here. It would not get fined tuned. This an example we can easily relate to.

This is your first misconception. Why would a wing have to have always been a wing during the evolutionary process that lead to birds? Some possible uses of '1/10 wing' would be a gliding mechanism, extra skin to allow for faster cooling in hot climates, or perhaps a way of displaying yourself to potential mates. I'm not saying all of these are the case (although I'll go have a look for examples), but this is an example to merely point out that any of those things could have evolved to become wings.

It's important to remember that evolution is not sentient, and does not have an aim. Wings did not evolve in stages.

However there is countless instances of this in creation. There is countless things that inbetween stages of it are of absolutely no advantage.

Not every evolutionary change has to be to the advantage of the individual.

An ear for example that doesn't work, there is no advantage at all of having an ear that doesn't work. Either it has to be developped fully to work or it isn't.

What if it wasn't always an ear? You also ignore the many types of ear that exist, some much less complicated that the one you're thinking of.

This is now an argument that applies in all ages. It his the basis of the theory.

No it isn't, you just don't understand the theory.

We can apply this thinking to many things that really, we should ask , why have we lucked out so much?

The answer is in the question - luck.

Take for example fruits. We see trees without fruits are more numerous. There is really no need of developing fruits through stages, as they are not advantage over the non-fruit trees which are more spread and numerous.

Fruits are one way of spreading seeds about - I fail to see the logic in 'there are more non-fruit trees, therefore fruit trees have no advantage'.

So how do we have fruits? Indeed fruits are sign of a Creator.

No they're not. You seem to be paying more attention to the style of your argument than the content.

And if we ponder over ridable animals. What are the chances we ever get them? Think about it. It's still a very low chance that ridable animals exist in the 1st place out of the many animals that exist. Yet we have them. And what would mankind do without them.

They were domesticated by humans - they didn't evolve that way. They are not naturally 'ridable' anyway, as they have to be trained first.

Then think about many things we use. Like Iron, etc. All this didn't have to be here. Yet we have them and they are of us. All this is sign of a Creator and Designer.

This bit both makes no sense and has nothing to do with evolution.

It's the way you choose to think. Things add up. Now there is aside from this other logical proof of a Creator. But I am simply talking about design of things.

There is also the golden ratio which we should really think about. Why are things not far away from the golden ratio but about there with it. Things would look ugly without the golden ratio. Yet through creation, we see constantly, the golden ratio. Is this not a proof of creator.

No it isn't. It's proof of a golden ratio. Why could that have not happened naturally? You make the assumption that it could not, but you give no evidence to back that assumption up.

If things were all to chance, you would expect some super ugly far from golden ratio things also survive and make it. So the beauty in creation is another sign. We don't see abominable creation, we see everything designed on the golden ratio which is a huge sign of a designer.

There are plenty of ugly animals out there.

Now a cell as we know is very complicated like a city. There is no way this could have come through random process.

Why not? Yet more assumptions without evidence.

This is not appeal to ignorance we say this, it's knowledge of design. And not only did it have to form, but it had to replicate itself, and be able to survive.

Now you're talking about abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is not evolution; they are two seperate theories. It's quite common to see Creationists confuse the two but I assure you that they are different.

Now if we think about so many things, like, just our tongue and various sounds we make. Our mind and the logic we have.

When did "logic" first develop?

I believe the Ancient Greeks first recognised 'logic', but as a general concept is has existed since animals have evolved memories.

All sorts of these questions in which we will recognize there is a Desinger. Logic is not a simple issue. It covers so many things and applies to so many things. However inbetween stage of illogic and logic is useless. If things were illogical and didn't rationalize what they saw, it would be useless. There is ofcourse stages of conciousness and use of logic, but logic itself again is something that is either there or not.

You're valuing style over substance again. What does that have to do with the topic of evolution?

If we think about the matter deeply, when we think marcoevolution, natural selection doesn't really prove anything. This specially when we consider that mutations simply change what is already there and don't really add new entire things.

Tell that to the mouse that we grew an ear on the back of.

Now if we ponder over the many fruits and vegetables we have, we all have to admit, this didn't have to be all here. How does this not count for design? Some fruits, but this many, when trees without fruits are doing better then trees with fruits? So how does natural selection cover this? It doesn't.

Yes it does. Natural selection refers to the ability of a species to adapt to the environment in which it is located. Now, if you'd like to demonstrate how Greenland is the same environment as the Amazon rainforest, then you might have an argument.

Also, since when was there only one way to do something?

1/10 development of wings can't be advantage so it shows there is a Designer.

Now you're just repeating yourself.

Birds prove a Creator. Now microevolution I have no problem with. However, even to say that is random is not fair. Mircoevolution occurs because of a design in nature. This is why it occurs. However the line "give it enough time, micro evolution becomes macroevolution" is rhetoric and is not been proved to be possible in any instance that is claimed to have happened.

The burden of proof is on you for that one. As far as most people are concerned, micro and macro evolution don't exist. There is just evolution.

Let me put it this way. Evolution results in mutations. Now say that with each new generation, the mutations bring the species further and further away genetically from the original organism. According to you, there is some kind of barrier that stops this before it becomes 'macroevolution'. What is this barrier and where is your evidence for it?

I gave a simple example of a bird because we can all relate to it. There is all sorts of things that the same logic applies, and this includes systems working together, a half system will entirely fail when everything has a use. A useless thing will never be part of it, because natural selection would pick it out. So either everything in a system has to be working together or not. For example, lungs that don't work are of no use. All the other parts that are in need of lungs and work with it, are of no use without it.

Again, you're stuck in the delusion that there can be only one kind of lung, and it either words or it doesn't. Evolution is not digital.

So if we really think about nature, it's clearly evident there is a Desinger. Be humble about it and don't call Creationist stupid and what not.

Not stupid, merely ignorant. Nothing wrong with ignorance - I'm ignorant about rocket science for example. Your post has shown that someone has taught you an incorrect version of the theory of evolution, or perhaps just a simple version, which you have drawn apparently logical conclusions from. That's why I suggested you post this in the Creation & Evolution forum, as there are many users there who can explain it to you.

Even if somehow (it's impossible but for sake of argument) that evolution was possible without a designer, there is a lot of things that still can prove a Creator. So where is the haste in concluding there is no proof of a Creator?

Why so off-topic? What does God have to do with evolution?

Let's keep thinking and not get be put down by people claiming to be more intelligent then the average person. We shouldn't be afraid to think and ponder just because we don't have as much knowledge in science.

Nope, although I would suggest you talk to some people who are.

What do Atheists have to say?

Again, you make weird assumptions. Why make the link between atheism and evolution? Have you ever heard of theistic evolution?

 

[AskTheFamily]

Asserting you know what an entire group of people think and why they do things is irrational.

I'll take this as my cue to depart from this discussion with you.

You are right, it's irrational. I basing my experience on every Athiest I talked to online about that subject, this is the process they always go through.

However you are right, that's wrong to conclude this about all Athiests or Atheists as a group.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Oh, dear...

AskTheFamily, I would suggest that you post your refutation in the Creation & Evolution forum, because the people there are best qualified to tear your post down.

Haha i didn't know. I ask mods to move it there.

 

[AskTheFamily]

I guess it's not even right to say I don't accept Macro evolution as possible depending on how you define it.

Some Macroevolution I see possible, a lot of marcoevolution is impossible.

I gave some examples of that, and so that is why evolution is false. It's not that many micro changes can't lead to big changes, it's that not all mirco changes can lead to every type of big change.

Notice the argument. So it's specific instantaneous things we are discussing so it's not denying the general propositions that big changes can happen from small changes, it's denying that every big change is possible from small changes. This is what it's denying.

 

[Ayersy]

But not all types of big changes. They can have big changes but not all types of changes are possible.

As for why not macroevolution, I shown why. As for having to accept both, as both become possible, this is blind cliche, and rhetoric that has become dogma of blind people rejecting their Creator despite the evidence of a Designer.

I didn't attack mutations and change, I showed specific things that cannot be explained by this process of mutations and natural selection.

Why exclude certain 'big changes'? Also, bear in mind, these 'big changes' were not big changes, at the time. All living creatures are constantly evolving, essentially, there are no big changes, since it's a very gradual change.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Why exclude certain 'big changes'?

This is what the thread is about. I explained why and this is the purpose of the thread.

 

[Delphiki]

I meant no advantage at all.
It would be hearing if it can receive vibrations and convey it. An ear that cannot pick up vibrations is useless, am I correct? So it had to be able to pick vibrations and not only that, but the brain analyzing it and making use of it. There could not have been a process to lead to this with blind chance and natural selection.

If a creature has bones, it may not need ears at all to 'hear'. Vibrations can be picked up in the bones and the noises felt. Hearing is just a much much more efficient way to do this. Nonetheless, hearing is also not essential for survival -- but in the wild it may significantly increase your chances. Even this is neglecting the fact that fish are quite capable of hearing without ears. They 'hear' because of areas on their sizes pick up vibrations in the water -- and all it takes for this to work on land better is a little bit more bone tissue, or something to carry the vibration from the outside air to the brain.

DNA is just a matter of how you look at things.

Not sure what you are saying here

Fossil evidence, there is lack of evidence in fossil evidence and it's all imagination that fills the gaps.

I get tired of seeing this argument.
There's a gap between 2 and 4 for which 3 is the transition.
There's a gap between 2 and 3 for which 2.5 is a transition.
There's a gap between 2 and 2.5 for which 2.25... well you get the point, I hope.
Reality deniers commonly make this argument because they know there will always be a hypothetical something that can fit between the cracks.

Yet trees without fruits are doing better? So no advantage of fruits over none-fruits, so how do you explain the numerous fruits we have?

Because all life isn't going to experience the same exact change at the same exact time all over the planet. The fact that the fruits are different but serve the same general purpose proves that mutations are random.

I have no problem with this type of stuff. Just because one type of change can occur, doesn't mean anything can become anything. And the latter has been proven impossible.

You're right. The theory of evolution doesn't say that anything can turn in to anything. If we were to see crocoducks walking around or a slug turn into a cat, that would actually disprove the theory of evolution.

Proof? I showed my reasoning, show how it's flawed.

It's flawed because, since the theory of evolution has empirical evidence, the burden is now on you to disprove it with empirical evidence -- and not just evidence that disproved the ToE. You will need empirical evidence for an alternative, like creation. Good luck finding any.

 

[Zoot]

AsktheFamily,

It seems clear to me that a mechanism that improves jumping could turn out to also make gliding possible. Gliding is, really, just a long aerodynamic leap.

It's like a tail getting longer and longer because it gives an advantage to balance, then suddenly it's long enough to hold branches for climbing.

Do you see? You're looking at gliding as if it was the goal of the evolution of flying foxes. I'm suggesting that the direction that evolution was taking was in favour of better and better jumping, then it turned out that what made for an excellent jumper also made for a possible glider.

 

[AskTheFamily]

AsktheFamily,

It seems clear to me that a mechanism that improves jumping could turn out to also make gliding possible. Gliding is, really, just a long aerodynamic leap.

Your just repeating the same exact point you brought. Perhaps you should address the points instead of repeating the exact same point you brought up.

If a creature has bones, it may not need ears at all to 'hear'. Vibrations can be picked up in the bones and the noises felt. Hearing is just a much much more efficient way to do this.

The transition from feeling vibrations to hearing, it's an ear, right? But for it develop to stage of "hearing", what's the inbetween steps? What's the process? It feels, then all of sudden hears? And if not, what's the inbetween step?

And how did it ever develop a thing that can feel vibrations, what's the inbetween steps to that? Anyone ear is what feels vibrations, so I'm not sure what you mean... but try to explain what you mean by it. I think you mean something that feels something is there, to something that hears sounds? I don't see the usefulness of just feeling sounds to begin with anyhow when you can't make anything out of them.

I think there can be a lot of changes in creatures, by process of mircoevolution (and becomes huge after a while), by something building on strong foundation already there and improving.

However not every structure can be built like this, some had to come in some strong developed form.

A ear needs to hear, then it can improve on it's hearing. There is no transition process of an ear that doesn't hear, to one that does. Neither is there a transition of lump of something that doesn't pick of vibrations to something that does. The process of natural selection doesn't apply to either, because the inbetween stages would be totally useless and never develop it.