Answering Key Issues Against the Theory of Darwinian Evolution

sfs, I see that you are so certain about your assumptions that you cannot consider the truth. I believe that we will ALL see the truth about this and everything else when we bow our knee before Jesus Christ at the last judgment. His light will reveal all lies.

ThatCanadianDude_88 said:

Bacteria cultures are bacteria cultures.

Click to expand...

Because they reproduce so rapidly that we can see great changes appear in a rather short period of time. Creationists often see it as cheating, because we can see evolution proceeding much more quickly than in organisms with longer generation times.

It is a different thing entirely to talk about fish evolving into amphibians and then into reptiles and mammals.

Click to expand...

Nope. Same process. Mutation and natural selection.

Why are you using the term speciation in the context of bacteria cultures,

Click to expand...

I didn't. Part of the problem here, is that you aren't following the conversation very carefully.

and why are you saying we observe Darwinian evolution here?

Click to expand...

Descent with modification. Random mutation and natural selection.

We cannot observe DE because of time-scale

Click to expand...

As you just learned, we do. Remember what it is. "Change in allele frequency in a population over time."

(see previous post about the human brain).

Click to expand...

I'm sure you were surprised to see favorable mutations in the human brain. It's just the way things work.

[quote[The problem comes when you start calling things "Darwinian evolution" when it is not, such as the example you gave of bacteria cultures.[/quote]

The descendants of the single bacterium used to start the culture were modified over time to evolve a new irreducibly complex enzyme system. Darwinian evolution.

The point of using the term "Darwinian" is to emphasize descent with modification

Click to expand...

Yep. And as you just learned, that's what happened.

I've noted that this is a popular argument, as if it is up to the critiques to "prove" what is stopping evolution. Why can't we just walk 50 miles? Because that's just not how it works.

Click to expand...

I've done it myself a time or two. Yes, it does work that way.

Conclusions are to be bound by actual evidence,

Click to expand...

Yep. As you learned, the evidence is overwhelming:
1. A very large number of transitional fossils that YE creationist Kurt Wise admits to be "strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

2. The nested hierarchy of taxa, which is found only in cases of common descent.

3. Genetic data, matching the hierarchy to a very precise degree. And we know it works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

4. Observed evolution

5. Biochemical data, showing that conserved organic molecules match the genetic and phenotypic data to a very precise level.

Among others.

I understand modern evolutionary theory

Click to expand...

As you see, you don't even know what Darwinian evolution is, or what the modern theory says.

and the place of genetics, perhaps not as in depth as you

Click to expand...

You seem completely confused as to what the observed phenomenon is, what Darwin said about it, and how the modern theory differs from Darwin's theory.

but that doesn't mean that my points are invalid or that I am guilty of being "misled".

Click to expand...

See above. You're confused about a lot things concerning the phenomenon of evolution, the theory that currently describes it, and the consequences of evolution. And you frequently mistake one of these for the others.

Also, to go back to a previous point - evolution did not produce common descent.

Click to expand...

See, you've messed up again. Evolution is an observed phenomenon. A change in allele frequency in a population over time. There is evolutionary theory which explains it. Common descent is a consequence of the phenomenon, just as the Cascade Mountains are a consequence of plate movement, but the Cascade Mountains are neither plate movement, nor are they the theory of plate tectonics.

So long as you continue to confuse these things, you'll be unable to get your mind around the issue.

TerryHueffed said:

I agree with you concerning micro-evolution but in order for the theory of evolution to be valid, there needs to be evidence that one species can evolve into another species, Macro-evolution.

Click to expand...

Yes. And that's been observed. In fact, most creationist organizations like "Answers in Genesis" and the Institute for Creation Research, have openly admitted the fact. The ICR even endorsed a paper claiming that new species, genera, and families are produced by older species.

Charles Darwin once said, " If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.” We know that cells are given locomotion via the flagellum motor. If one piece of this motor within a cell was missing via evolution, cells would not have any locomotion and therefore nullifies the theory of evolution.

Click to expand...

Turns out, you're wrong. There is no single bacterial flagellum. There are a number of types, some less complex than others. And the subunits are useful for other things, such as secretory apparatus. Would you like to learn about that?

You're arguing from irreducible complexity, but of course, irreducible complexity can evolve. Would you like to learn about that?

There's a nice case that I mentioned earlier. A new enzyme system evolved in bacteria by mutation and natural selection. But it also evolved a regulator, which only allows the enzyme to be produced if the substrate is present to be broken down.

So all three of these must be present for the system to work; if one is missing, it won't do anything. And yet it evolved.

sfs said:

What's a completely different kind of creature? Are chimpanzees and humans different kinds? They're both mammals, and they're both primates.

Click to expand...

This is a huge problem for creationists, who say that wolves,dogs, foxes, etc. all came from a "dog kind." But there is far more genetic variation between canids than there is between humans and chimpanzees. So it's a rock and a hard place for them.

Deborah D said:

We can "observe natural processes that change species" in some way, but what we cannot observe are natural processes changing one kind of creature into a completely different kind of creature (scientific jargon aside).

Click to expand...

Evolution never does that. It always changes a population from one kind of organism to a slightly different kind of organism. Over a long period of time, those many slight changes add up. Sometimes it goes rather quickly. It took just a few decades for a population of lizards to evolve a new digestive organ. Would you like to learn about that.

The FACT is that we CANNOT OBSERVE this process called Darwinian evolution.

Click to expand...

We observe it constantly. "Descent with motification." The lizards on that island in the Adriatic. Darwin's finches on Daphne Major. Drosophila miranda. And of course many, many other instances that did not involve such macroevolutionary changes, such as the Tibetans who evolved an allele to survive and reproduce at high altitudes.

Plus, you have to ASSUME the "millions of years" lie in order for Darwin's theory to make any sense at all.

Click to expand...

Comes down to evidence. If you check, you'll find that it's overwhelming. And it comes mostly from physics, not "evolutionists." Would you like to learn how Darwin won an argument with Lord Kelvin over the age of the Earth?

No doubt what I've said sounds ridiculous to you.

Click to expand...

It's sad. Instead of thinking for yourself, you've bought into a modern revision of Genesis that was never Christian orthodoxy. YE creationism is a modern idea, no older than the last century. Indeed the form of creationism presented at the Scopes Trial was old Earth creationism; it was the only form that was consistent with Genesis.

ThatCanadianDude_88 said:

I'm not confusing things

Click to expand...

Sorry, you are. Until you can figure out the differences between evolution (the observed change in allele frequency of a population over time), evolutionary theory (the theory that explains it) and common descent (one consequence of evolution) you're just running around in circles.

and you're evading the points I am raising.

Click to expand...

I'm correcting your misconceptions about it.

I think it's yourself who is unable to get your mind around the issue.

Click to expand...

If you don't even know which of those is which, how can you understand anything?

Think about it and then we'll talk.

ThatCanadianDude_88 said:

Ridicule and appeal to authority.

Click to expand...

Actually, he asked you for some evidence to support your beliefs. You refused.

Not anything new.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately not. It's what we usually see happen.

Evolution has nothing on the human brain,

Click to expand...

That's like saying manufacturing has nothing on the airplane. Makes no sense. This goes back to your difficulty separating the process from the theory, from the consequences.

when it comes to down to it. You are just refusing to square with the evidence. We know more than enough concerning mutations and the human brain.

Click to expand...

Everything seems simple if you don't know anything about it.

ThatCanadianDude_88 said:

Ridicule and appeal to authority.

Click to expand...

I ridiculed nothing and no one. I asked you for evidence and got nothing in return except a link to a badly confused post by someone who doesn't understand genetics well. I mentioned a couple of cases that refuted your claim that all brain-related mutations cause harm, and in response you have said not one word. I asked what expertise you had in this subject since you're making sweeping claims about a field you don't seem to know a blessed thing about. From your response I take it that you don't have any. I pointed you to an entire class of evidence -- genome-wide association studies and selection scans -- and again you said nothing.

To sum up: you have made claims about genetics and evolution without any supporting evidence, you're ignored the evidence you've been given, and your complaint is that I am not dealing with the evidence? What's the point of offering criticism of evolution if you just clam up when you're confronted with people who know somethings about the subject?

KomatiiteBIF said:

Regarding the cambrian explosion, you made the statement "the introduction of many novel lifeforms with no evolutionary history".

But this is actually an incorrect statement and is a common misconception. Prior to the cambrian explosion, we actually have found fossil precursors such as: anabarites, arthropod trace fossils (things like trilobite tracks) archaeocyathans (proto-sponges), brachiopods (like shellfish/bivalves), invertebrate burrows. We also have things like microscopic shelled organisms and more...

The cambrian explosion isnt actually an anomolous event in which novel forms just appeared out of thin air, rather fossil precursors such as the ones identified above, predate the explosion in some cases by up to 50 million years. And of course there are the ediacaran biota as well, though these are not considered ancestral to organisms of the burgess shale and simply went extinct.

So, the question remains, if the cambrian explosion wasnt the initial appearance of life, then why does it exist in the fossil record?

And there are a number of possibilities. Some well supported. The most well known response to this question is that life developed shells for the first time. Soft bodied organisms of 600 million years in age, often went un-fossilized. We have rare laagerstaaten in which soft bodied organisms have fossilized, but these are rare and most life would not have become fossilized as they were soft and decay and degrade easily. Whereas shelled organisms...well, a shell is hard and dense and can last a very long time. So, when life evolved shells, all of a sudden we have the appearance of a vast plethora of organisms. Well, not just shells, but other hard parts too, like teeth, spines etc. And essentially what we have is an evolutionary arms race, where predators force natural selection to push prey toward developing shelled and horned defenses. Shelled and horned defenses push predators to develop weapons such as the hardened mouth and shrimp like claws of anomalocaris.


This unfolded, also in a time in which the supercontinent rodinia was rifting, which presumably would have produced a warm temperate environment for life to thrive, along side the ending of what evidence has depicted as a global ice age in prior times.

And some concepts are up for debate and discussion, but one thing is for sure, many complex forms of life/precursors existed some tens of millions of years prior to the cambrian explosion, which is far more than enough time for the diversification that is observed in the cambrian at large to be explained by a form of gradualistic evolution.

If you would like sources on any if the above information, feel free to ask.

Click to expand...

Im just sitting around twiddling my thumbs for someone to respond to this ^.

sfs said:

I ridiculed nothing and no one. I asked you for evidence and got nothing in return except a link to a badly confused post by someone who doesn't understand genetics well. I mentioned a couple of cases that refuted your claim that all brain-related mutations cause harm, and in response you have said not one word. I asked what expertise you had in this subject since you're making sweeping claims about a field you don't seem to know a blessed thing about. From your response I take it that you don't have any. I pointed you to an entire class of evidence -- genome-wide association studies and selection scans -- and again you said nothing.

To sum up: you have made claims about genetics and evolution without any supporting evidence, you're ignored the evidence you've been given, and your complaint is that I am not dealing with the evidence? What's the point of offering criticism of evolution if you just clam up when you're confronted with people who know somethings about the subject?

Click to expand...

Maybe he is mark kennedy, hiding behind another account? Seems to refer to the same argument, simultaneously does not present evidence for the same argument either.

KomatiiteBIF said:

Im just sitting around twiddling my thumbs for someone to respond to this ^.

Click to expand...

This is more likely to happen first:
http://hauntedohiobooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/devil-skating.jpg

TerryHueffed said:

I agree with you concerning micro-evolution but in order for the theory of evolution to be valid, there needs to be evidence that one species can evolve into another species, Macro-evolution. No such evidence exists, and all the evidence offered to support species evolving into other species has been proven false.

Click to expand...

I've been on a role with this one, so im just going to keep throwing it out there....

"And I always turn to the popular example. The devonian is the age of fish. Fish dominate early devonian strata. Terrestrial life dominates the late devonian and Carboniferous. If evolution were true. Then fish-like tetrapods should exist in the mid devonian, after domination of fish but before the terrestrial takeover of the late devonian and Carboniferous.

Not only that, but genetically, amphibians according to evolution will also be found between fish and reptiles, as reptiles are those that dominate the Carboniferous and fish dominated the devonian (with respect to genetics based phylogeny/similarity).

Knowing this, a team of scientists from Philadelphia and Chicago used a geologic map to find middle aged devonian rock, aged between the dominance of fish and the dominance of terrestrial vertebrates. This rock was in the Canadian tundra. That's just where the rock is exposed. They traveled specifically to rock consistent of shallow marine deposits, things like stream deposits and alluvial fan deposits, a place where one would expect a fish with legs to live, and they found a fish with legs.

That is tiktaalik. It has scales like a fish, gills (for breathing underwater) and fins. But it also has rotating wrists, robust shoulders, a flat head with eyes on top, like an alligator. and it had spiracles on it's head indicating that it could breath air. Neck vertebrae are un-fused like a tetrapod, so it could turn its head and look around while the body stays stationary, but it's jaw is shaped like a fishes.

So they truly found a part fish part tetrapod animal right where evolution predicted that such a thing would exist up in a mid-devonian outcrop in Canada.

So what is the response from evolution deniars? Do they believe the discovery of tiktaalik was pure chance? "




The most common response I hear is "oh well the zachelmie tracks of the eifelian (which also is in the mid devonian between fish and tetrapods) predates tiktaalik, so it must all be false".

1. This response ignores that the zachelmie tracks are found also in the mid-devonian, right where evolution would predict them to be.

2. It also ignores the potential for these tracks to have been made by something morphologically similar to tiktaalik (they both lived at relatively similar times, they may both have relatively similar morphological features too).

3. And it also ignores the fact that, if evolution were not true, we would be just as likely to find dinosaurs in the mid devonian, or birds, or mammals, or reptiles. But we dont find any of this, we only find what evolution would predict, which is early fish like tetrapods and early tetrapod like fish.

4. And lastly, this response still doesn't explain how the prediction was made in discovering tiktaalik.

The reality is that there are over a billion years of rock which contain fossils on earth. Whereas the eifelian and frasnian are separated by a mere 5-10 million years, which is like a blink of geologic time. The zachelmie tracks of the eifelian and tiktaalik of the frasnian and tetrapod like fish such as eustheneptoron and fish like tetrapods like acanthostega, are all pieces of the same marine fish to land-based tetrapod evolutionary succession that occurred after the early devonian in which fish dominated the sea, and prior to the late devonian in which tetrapods dominated the land.

The thing that always escapes creationists is that old species often live on long after new ones appear. So it's not a shock to realize that monotremes are still around, even though placental mammals evolved millions of years ago.

I suspect that even many of the guys who throw up those excuses realize this.

sfs said:

What's a completely different kind of creature? Are chimpanzees and humans different kinds? They're both mammals, and they're both primates.

(Note: if we were using scientific jargon, we'd say that we can observe Darwinian evolution, since any change in a species involving natural selection is Darwinian evolution. But leave that aside.) No, we cannot observe millions of years of evolution since we don't live for millions of years. What we can observe is the evidence left behind, and see if it looks like what we would expect if evolution did indeed happen. And we have lots and lots of evidence, especially from genetics. What we observe is that genetics looks exactly like evolution has happened for millions of years. In fact, we can actually predict in considerable detail what kinds of things we will see before we even look at the evidence. Creationism, on the other hand, can't predict anything at all about genetic data. Why do you suppose that is if it's true?

Good heavens. That life has been around for millions of years (billions, actually) isn't an assumption. It's a conclusion based on overwhelming, incontrovertible evidence. That the earth was very old was established scientifically long before Darwin; scientific discoveries since then have only confirmed and more precise the great age of our planet, over and over and over again. A young earth is scientifically impossible.


Your response seems to have nothing to do with what I wrote. I didn't say that you or anyone should accept evolution just because Billy Graham did. I said that the fact that people like Graham had no problem with evolution demonstrate that you can both accept evolution and believe in God. (By the way, here's what Graham actually wrote about evolution: “I don’t think that there’s any conflict at all between science today and the scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we’ve tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren’t meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. … whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man’s relationship to God.”)


Well, good. Have you ever considered the possibility that it's your interpretation of the Bible that's at issue, not the Bible itself? Have you read any of the Bible scholars and theologians (e.g. John Walton, N.T. Wright) who see no conflict between the Bible and evolution? Do you really think that you alone are the authority about what the Bible says?

Click to expand...

I felt the need to revisit the claims made by sfs that Billy Graham and C.S. Lewis had no problem with evolution. Singling out one quote as he did doesn't tell the whole story at all.

The above quote by Graham is addressed at his organization's website. They said, "Just to clarify, Mr. Graham said there is no conflict with science and creation, not evolution and creation. He was merely explaining some of the different viewpoints." So, to say that he had no problem with Darwinian evolution is not the truth!

I suspect that, like me, Graham attended public schools that taught evolution as fact, not theory, so he struggled with what he had been told was scientific fact. Never once do I remember any of my teachers stressing that it was only a theory! I wish that they had, but they probably spoke out of ignorance--what they had been told....

As far as C.S. Lewis is concerned, there are some quotes that seem to point to a belief in Darwinian evolution, but there are also quotes by him that say otherwise. He was an atheist for years. He spent years being trained in the classics, including mythology, which is evident in The Chronicles of Narnia. When he became a Christian later in life, he had a lot of rethinking to do, no doubt.

Consider the following Lewis quote from God is the Dock:
If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents, the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists’ and astronomers’ as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts, i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents.

Perhaps both of these Christian "giants" grappled with the issue of the theory of evolution and its blatant contradictions to the Bible account of the Creation because scientists made it sound so plausible. Perhaps, like me, they were never taught to question the religion of Darwinism. But this doesn't mean that as Christians they had no problem with the theory.

Deborah D said:

I felt the need to revisit the claims made by sfs that Billy Graham and C.S. Lewis had no problem with evolution. Singling out one quote as he did doesn't tell the whole story at all.

Click to expand...

Graham didn't have problems with evolution, because he began his ministry prior to the invention of YE creationism. So he wasn't caught up in that particular revision of Genesis. It just didn't make any sense for him to be concerned about it.

C.S. Lewis, while realizing the fact of evolution, condemned the idea of evolution replacing creation. It was in his estimation, merely God's creation.

I suspect that, like me, Graham attended public schools that taught evolution as fact, not theory,

Click to expand...

It's a common error creationists make, confusing evolution (which is an observed fact), with evolutionary theory, which explains what it is. People who say "it's only a theory" do not understand what the word means.

A theory is an idea or a set of ideas that have been repeatedly verified by evidence. A hypothesis does not become a theory until enough evidence has been gathered to consider it settled.

As far as C.S. Lewis is concerned, there are some quotes that seem to point to a belief in Darwinian evolution, but there are also quotes by him that say otherwise. He was an atheist for years.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it would be good for you to read about his conversion. It's worth a look.

Deborah D said:

The above quote by Graham is addressed at his organization's website. They said, "Just to clarify, Mr. Graham said there is no conflict with science and creation, not evolution and creation. He was merely explaining some of the different viewpoints." So, to say that he had no problem with Darwinian evolution is not the truth!

Click to expand...

Here's part of what I quoted from him: "I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man." So yes, he was indeed talking about evolution, not merely science (although the distinction is moot since evolution is part of science). Whether he had a problem with Darwinian evolution or not I have no idea; why introduce specifically Darwinian evolution?

Deborah D said:

Consider the following Lewis quote from God is the Dock:
If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents, the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists’ and astronomers’ as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts, i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents.

Click to expand...

He's not arguing against evolution here; he's arguing against materialism. He doesn't believe that we are the product of an accident -- a belief that is quite consistent with evolution. Mind you, from what I've read of and by Lewis (which is a great deal), he was pretty skeptical about the truth of evolution, but I've never seen any suggestion that he thought evolution was per se inconsistent with Christianity.

May I suggest to anyone to study quantum physics .It proves that just as a computer appears to be no more than circuits , transistors ( hard ware ) there is much more. You need programming software to make everything run and it needs to be updated overtime otherwise it won't function. This what Max Planck discovered that is why he said paraphrasing behind everything in the universe there is a Creator making every thing work.Of course the devil wants to deny our Creator exists that's why evolution is taught instead .

John Bowen said:

May I suggest to anyone to study quantum physics .It proves that just as a computer appears to be no more than circuits , transistors ( hard ware ) there is much more. You need programming software to make everything run and it needs to be updated overtime otherwise it won't function.

Click to expand...

I have studied quantum physics quite heavily -- I have a PhD in particle physics. Quantum physics doesn't say what you think it says.