Evolution fails to answer the most important question!

[Greatcloud]

All you need to know about the question of evolution is did God think up the universe ? Or can mankind discover enough all across the edge of it to find it's plumbline,and when do we discover it ? ​

I believe modern mans thinking on this issue is out of whack. ​

 

[Hagnismos]

I apologize in advance for the long post.



Throughout all the debates on "creationism vs evolution", there have been may good points and evidence made for and against both. The origin of most species of animals is very well documented, and adaptation and micro-evolution is very evident when closely studying the fossil record on earth. And, even though there are a lot of gaps in the theory of evolution (enough that an unbiased scientist would have to think of evolution as a theory, and still not fact) these gaps seem small in comparison to the vast amounts of data gathered from fossils, current species, and other paleontological studies.

However, as compelling as these data can be, the fact is that evolution only seems to show that certain species may have changed bilologically and physically over the course of longs periods of time, and shows little to no data in regards to how complex bio-organisms came to be from simple puddles of "primordial goo". The single most important step in the evolutionary theory is not that humans evolved from apes, but rather how the cell, the building block of all life on earth, came to be from a suspension of simple proteins in water and other liquids.

The evolutionary theory is largely dependent on the fact that, although all life forms on earth are different both physically and biologically, we all share DNA, and such is the evidence scientists need to prove that all life evolved from a single point. DNA carries the "code" which dictates what form, shape, species, and race a specific living thing takes, and so through mutations, adaptations, and other outside stimuli, DNA can carry the code to future generations. The only problem is, using our current "genetic family tree", we can only go so far, to the first ever cell, carrying the very first amounts of sugars and phosphates that formed the first chain of deoxyribonucleic acid polymers.

Let us for a moment think as a truly neutral scientist, studying for the first time an archaic cell fossil found on a rock, and then let us ponder "what did this little cell evolve FROM?" we now know that a cell very easily copies itself, instructed to do so by its DNA. But when studying a cell, we find that it is a very intricate, complex mechanism. As small as it is, even early archaic froms of the cell were far too complex to have spontaneously formed on their own, even under favorable conditions.

Before even bringing up any other arguments against cell evolution, we must take into account a fairly new division in biology, Biomechanics. A few disciplines that play a big role in Biomechanics are Thermodynamics (both fluid and solid), Continuum mechanics, and other branches of physics. By using these disciplines, scientists are able to study microorganisms as they never before had been able to.

Biomechanics infers that for one to form theories on life at a molecular level, one must observe and obey the Laws of Thermodynamics, and as such the second law will be discussed here, as it pertains to this discourse.

The second law, more notably the law of entropy, states that closed (without an outside energy source) energy systems have a tendency to increase their entropy, in essence slowing down altogether. As a quick experiment, take 2 lego blocks, and put them in a bag, then shake the bag. Statistically, what are the chances that the blocks will eventually connect correctly? How then, can a bio-mechanical system as complex as a cell can come together on its own? By its own definition, the second law of thermodynamics PROHIBITS this from even taking place. A complex system is more likely to break down overtime, and not become more complex without outside influences. What kind of influence would be needed to create such a complex biological apparatus? You decide.

We can easily say that this is probably the biggest and most damaging gap to the theory of evolution, at least when it concerns macro-evolution and the theory of the origin of life. The evolutionary theory might explain what general adaptability is attributed to, but it comes short from explaining the origin of life.

Umm,

I can make the probability argument. Imagine that on the shores of ancient seas there are millions or even billions of little tidal pools in which billions or perhaps trillions of molecules are sloshing around every moment for 300 million years or so. The energy source is sunlight and wave action, plus some types of chemical things going on, some vanderwaals stuff I guess, can we agree the probability of proto-organic molecules is there? What about these deep sea vents where the vent fumes have all sorts of rich chemical components?

It would seem to me (and this informed by many years of studying the scriptures and science) how old the earth is has no bearing on salvation, and neither can evolution be used as a an arguement against God's existence.

You can see examples of how versatile life is when you look at how quickly tame sine revert to wild boar status with giant tusks and even growing extra hair. The idea that we live in a world of variation at nearly every level means that any short lived pattern could give rise to something entirely new, long lived patterns of climate and competition most surely do.

Christians really have nothing to fear from the theory of evolution per se, it is those who would use that or any theory or ideology to hinder the simple choice to believe in God. However irrational belief might seem I can't see how people can argue against belief in a loving God.

Let me finish this post with this. On area of Scripture that is not obvious I often find it interesting to study all of the extent interpetations and their implications in life and society. In this way, though you may not figure it out you can pray about it and let it go. I find it interesting when people need to choose one among many possible positions not directly influencing salvation and then vehemently insist that others must also see it their way.

The thing humans should be fighting is not honest respectful debate, but wickedness, both from within and without. Such battles are one by embracing justice not only as a code written in a book, but as something to be considered well by every citizen.

There are many subtle concepts related to Old Earth Creationism that might have bearing on evolution. Have you ever heard the idea that Satan's rebellion caused some of the mutations that happened? Not a scientific theory, but a valid point of doctrinal consideration for some old earthers.

What if we thought of doctrine (scientific or religious) as a set of points on a page connected by lines. Every point has a label and every line has a label. Each point has a number called it's weight and each line can be singly or doubly directed and weighted in both directions or not at all, and each line has length.

When you look at an area of controversy as being a subset of points and lines, the positions, weights and measures of which are in dispute you can sort of pull out the orientation associated with theory A, and drop in the orientation associated with theory B and see how it affects the overall.

In terms of exegesis you find that many false interpretations of the Bible reveal themselves because they force a distortion of very clear passages and principles that is untenable.

This is also why cults tend to have completely wrong interpretations of the Bibles major points and is the deception which captures many.

Complexity that cannot have originated on it's own does exist and may be a smoking gun of sorts. I mean logically I have never heard a cosmologist deny that they do not know what happened before the Big Bang, and most freely admit that eternally cycling universes is as much religion as they might claim creationism to be.

Sadly, there are people (and I think behind those people other beings) who are always stirring the pot and always trying to act out their agression toward others in both passive and active ways. The Bible says 'God is angry with the wicked continually.' And why not, they are always trying to sow discord among brethren.

 

[m3th0dm4n]

I'm not going to play cut-and-paste games with you. Here: www.talkorigins.org

Check it out. You wouldn't want to be a "closed minded zelot[sic]" would you?

Don't forget 'dishonest' in that list of adjectives.

 

[Washington]

All you need to know about the question of evolution is did God think up the universe ? Or can mankind discover enough all across the edge of it to find it's plumbline,and when do we discover it ?
​

​

Obviously you have no idea of how little sense this makes. My condolences.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

In the sense of scientific theory, facts simply exist. Man kinds attempts to understand and explain these facts by guessing and testing. After observing, we attempt to explain why/how that event occurred by stating a hypothesis or "an educated guess", and doing some preliminary testing, data collection.

After additional testing our hypothesis (guess), and obtaining validating results, our hypothesis can be considered a Theory.

Agreed.

Laws have been, and can continue to be tested, resulting in validating the theory each and every time. One of the requirements for becoming a law is that the experiment used to test the theory must be recreated over and over again with validating results. This is why many of the theories regarding the creation of earth and man have yet to become laws, or have yet to be disregarded totally ~ nobody can recreate the circumstances surrounding the dawn of man or earth.

Disagreed. Theories do not become laws. "Theory" is as good as it gets. The "Law" qualifier isn't a title to be one; it is generally given to mathematical formulae that are defined to be true (Newton's Laws, for instance), or are assumed to be true for a given mathematical model (Maxwell's Laws).
Moreover, such testing is possible for hypotheses concerning ancient events. For example, the theory of common descent predict the existence of so-called 'transitional' fossils. These have been found (indeed, Archaeopteryx was found shortly after Darwin published his On the Origin of Species).

On a side note Dr. Leakey's "Lucy" was pieced together from several apes found over a 20 mile radius. Dr. Leaky put a large head with shorter arms and longer legs together. He then proclaimed he had a precursor of ape to man. This fraud is still considered a valid transition of ape to man even though it is a fraud. The fossil record is full of these frauds.

Source? Lucy was in fact found at a single site. This myth that has evolved surrounding Lucy arises from the fact that a knee was found a way away from Lucy. Creationists took this as evidence that Lucy was, in fact, a composite of organisms. As it happens, Lucy doesn't have any knees. Or, at least, the fossil doesn't. It was never claimed that the knee found near her was her own knee.
Or, see here.

About the adaptability of species,it is simply backwards. The truth is they were created with adaptive abilities. No species changed into another, God created them to be perfect for their enviroment.

"No species changed into another".
I cite you this list of observed instances of speciation (read: one species changing into another).

 

[Braunwyn]

Exactly ! That´s why evolution is BUNK. That´s like saying :
"I´ve got a theory on how kernels become popcorn . But not only have I never actually SEEN a kernel do it, I´ve never seen a kernel or know how to get one".

Ludicrous.

This is embarrassing to read. jeeze louise.

i'm glad you brought up abiogenesis, because it is this discipline in fact is where I believe the focus should be, and not so much on the theory of Evolution, as they are in fact two different issues in themselves.

Than why title your thread with evolution when you're looking to question abiogenesis?

 

[USincognito]

Evolutions' Hoaxes and Retractions
Below is a summary of some famous discoveries and what eventually became of them.

Actually no. This list, whereever you got it from, is full of mistakes, legends and outright lies that you're repeating. Let's test these supposed "hoaxes and retractions" versus reality.

Discovery What was found What it was Java Man 1891-92 by Eugene Dubois in Java on the Solo river. A skull cap, fifty feet away a femur, and, later in another location, three teeth. A hoax. They were the skull of a gibbon and a human leg bone. They were found a year apart but not in the same spot.

Not a hoax and the skull is that of a H. erectus, not a Gibbon. Also one find was by Du Bois, the other was not.

Piltdown Man Eoanthropous 1911-12, England. Named Eoanthropus Dawsoni (Dawson's Dawn Man). A Hoax discovered in 1953. It was believed for 40 years. It was a fraud by a group of scientists. A human skull and the jaw of an ape were stained to look old.

I devoted an entire formal debate to why Creationists should not cite Piltdown. Here's the abbreviated version. There were questions immediately about the legitimacy of the find. American and French scientists were especially dubtful. There weren't that many finds in 1912, only Neanderthal and Java predated it. As the finds in Africa and Asia were unearthed, the doubt continued to grow.

Also, it's a lie that it was a "fraud by a group of scientists". It simply is unknown who the forger was and the British scientists who supported Piltdown were dupes, not perps.

Peking Man China 1920, original bones lost. Found in a cave with thousands of animal bones. The human bones appeared to be cannibalized Bones from a garbage dump. No evidence of transitional forms.

Incorrect. Peking Man was an H. erectus.

Australopithecines The Southern Ape from Africa Most experts say they are all apes.

No they do not.

Evolutionists claim that they are our ancestors Lucy 1974, Ethiopia. Australopithecines. A fossil skeleton 40% complete. Bones found miles apart at different depths. The hip was cut and reglued so that it looked like she walked upright Still in dispute but they are apes that were just as bipedal as other monkeys. A fraud was also committed.

No fraud. Her knee joint is the key indicator to her bipedalism, not just her hip. And the hip was demonstrably compressed during the fossilization process. It's also a myth that her bones were found "miles apart".

Rhodesian Man 1921, declared to be one million years old Modern person with dental problems from a modern diet and a hole in his skull from either a bullet or a crossbow (both modern weapons)

Rhodesia Man has been dated to between 125,000 and 300,000 years old, and probably an H. hidelbergensis. And no, it wasn't a bullet or crossbow bolt that made the injury.

cont. in part 2

 

[USincognito]

Taung African Man South Africa 1924, "Skull" A young ape

Actually a partial skull and an endocast of the brain. The part we have includes something very important the foramen magnum

However, there was one additional feature to the Taung Child that was not easily explained away as a characteristic of an immature ape. The position of the foramen magnum, or the hole through which the spinal chord connects with the brain, was positioned well to the front of the skull, an adaptation of a bipedal creature whose head would rest atop the neck in a relatively balanced position. Conversely, a quadrupedal ape whose head would rest in front of the neck, would need a foramen magnum positioned to the rear of the head to keep its eyes facing forward, and not down, as it moved. If this truly was a chimpanzee, and not an early human, why the forward positioning of the foramen magnum?

Taung child was an early human. Not an chimpanzee.

Nebraska Man Midwest 1922, Single molar tooth, used as evidence in the Scope's Monkey trial Tooth of an extinct pig. Living specimens of the same pig were found in Paraguay in 1972. It used to be in many museums as proof of evolution.

Much like Piltdown, Creationists should stop citing Nebraska Man as it was a case of misidentification and never taken seriously by the scientific community (a human in North America would falsify evolutionary theory). Also it's a myth that Nebraska Man was used in the Scopes trial.

Creationists often claim that Nebraska Man was used as proof of evolution during the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925, but this claim is apocryphal. No scientific evidence was presented at the trial. (Some evidence was read into the trial record, but even this did not refer to Nebraska Man.)

The last part about Nebraska Man being used in many museums is simply a lie.

Nutcracker Man 1959, set of mismatched bones discovered by Louis Leakey The discoverer conceded that it was the skull of an ape

Wrong on so many levels in such a short sentence.

Skull 1470 1973, 2.8 million year old skull by Richard Leakey A modern person (such as a teen) with a small brain

H. rudolphensis, not a human as can be seen in the skull. Paleontologists are open to reclassification, but into another hominid genus, not H. sapiens.

Ramapithicus 1961. A few teeth and a jawbone. From this they deduced that it walked upright. Ancestor of an orangutan.

And was it Creationists who determined it wasn't a hominid or paleontologists who, looking at other finds, realized it was not?

Neanderthal 1908, France-Germany, described as totally human. Deformed vertebra from arthritis. DNA studies show no link to any human groups.

Your date is off by 50 years, finds range from Spain to Israel and no, they weren't normal humans with arthritus, rickets, or whatever.

Archaeoraptor 1999, China. The missing link between the bird and reptiles Fake. Dinosaur glued to a bird.

Apart from the word fake, all of your commentary is incorrect. Birds evolved from dinosaurs, not from reptiles (mammals split from reptiles). Archeoraptor was perpetrated by a greedy farmer, unscrupulous fossil merchants and succeeded because National Geographic failed to fully vet it. Once it was studied by paleontologists - not Creationists - it was exposed as a fake and National Geographic printed a full retraction.

Archaeopteryx Bones that were thought to be the missing link between the bird and reptiles It is a bird, not a missing link. A complete skeleton and the femur of a bird were later found

Sorry, but this is incorrect.

Similar in size and shape to a European Magpie, Archaeopteryx could grow to about 0.5 metres (1.6 ft) in length. Despite its small size, broad wings, and ability to fly, Archaeopteryx has more in common with small theropod dinosaurs than it does with modern birds. In particular, it shares the following features with the deinonychosaurs (dromaeosaurs and troodontids): jaws with sharp teeth, three fingers with claws, a long bony tail, hyperextensible second toes ("killing claw"), feathers (which also suggest homeothermy), and various skeletal features.

Hobbit (Homo Floresiensis) Flores, Indonesia. Female, 3 feet tall and multiple individuals and animals in a cave. New human species. Lived 18000 years ago. Date of bones ranged from 18000, 37000 and 74000 years A pygmy with a brain shrinking disease. Locals claimed they were short, hairy people called the Abu-Gogo who lived in caves at the time of their grandparents. The 56000 year difference in age suggests an error in our dating methods

Not really.

While it was desperate scientists who perpetrated the hoax, it is still good science that exposed them. However, they have a fatal flaw due to their bias and wishful thinking. There is a distinct lack of credible links between man and ape. They should be all over the place why are there none ?

Apart from the links I've already provided you can look Here, Here, Here, Here or Here and that's just to get you started.

 

[USincognito]

Is that crickets I hear? Greatcloud hasn't logged on today, but are there no Creationists willing to stand up to the facts I presented?

Bueler?...

 

[Chalnoth]

All you need to know about the question of evolution is did God think up the universe ? Or can mankind discover enough all across the edge of it to find it's plumbline,and when do we discover it ? ​

I believe modern mans thinking on this issue is out of whack. ​

So, what, we should just ignore the fact that science has been wildly successful at coming up with correct answers, and just stop trying? Where would the sense be in that?

 

[Maxwell511]

Entire volumes have been and are being written on this particular subject, which is more in the realm of philosophy than science. A theory can be either a very limited or a very broad explanation of a particular set of facts, an explanation that describes the relationship between previously unexplained or noncohesive facts and ideas. It unifies, into a usually brief statement, how something works. It often specifies the mechanism of how some process of nature is working, although mechanism may only be a part of the overall phenomenon. If a hypothesis is a proposed explanation of how some process works, then a theory is a hypothesis for which some substantial supporting data has been obtained. However, as noted above, a theory can be very narrow (how a single type of small process works) or very broad (e.g., the theory of evolution, a very complicated process indeed).
A law is, to my mind, simply a very, very broad and very very important theory for which we have very very good data and which applies to many, many aspects of our world. Thus the Laws of Thermodynamics or in chemistry the Laws of Mass Action (notice the capital letters, which laws tend to be stated in, for emphasis), apply not only to physical chemistry and chemistry in general, but to physics, biology, perhaps even economics. We also have very good data that these laws are obeyed universally and have detailed knowledge of their mechanisms. In contrast, a theory, though widely accepted may lack some crucial details of mechanism.
Put succinctly, a theory is a Law that hasn't been around long enough or doesn't yet have enough data to become a Law.
Hope this helps -- Dr. Michael E. Maguire
Department of Pharmacology
School of Medicine
Case Western Reserve University

I think Dr. Maguire trumps your 10th graders,do you disagree with him ?

Yes. I am sorry I am not an 10th grader though. What Dr. Maguire says is complete bull.

For example Snell's law on the refraction of light through different mediums and Netwon's gravitational law, which are "explained" by the wave theory of light and the theory of general relativity respectively.

Btw even the second law of thermodynamics is explained by the kinetic theory.

Laws are not broad. They are very specific mathematical relationships for which we have never found "true" counterexamples. Theories are the broad general things that "explain" the laws.

Could be wrong though, do you have any examples of scientific laws that are not statements but explanations? It is, for me, only boredom at the repetitive nature of the task that would stop me from giving more examples of how laws are mathematical statement and not explanations.

P.S. For the original post's example of lego blocks. The scientific* theories of complexity are many and relatively young. However all them are dependent on the notion that complexity arises through the interactions between "units" being the determinate of the system's state or the probability of future states. Non-linear mathematics is not one of humanities things at the moment but now we have computers, so soon it may be. The lego block example is based on a linear interpretation of the world. The universe is non-linear.

*Depends if you think things like string theory or any other theoretical physics is itself scientific.

 

[timmeh]

I find it somewhat disturbing at the level of mistruths and perversions of science being pushed here by Christians. Deceptions and lies certainly do not help your cause.

Interesting to note that as soon as challenged with facts, the Christians seem to disappear. Is reality really that frightening??

 

[Cabal]

I find it somewhat disturbing at the level of mistruths and perversions of science being pushed here by Christians. Deceptions and lies certainly do not help your cause.

Interesting to note that as soon as challenged with facts, the Christians seem to disappear. Is reality really that frightening??

Welcome to the board TIMMEH!

Yes, unfortunately we've been waiting for the "evidence" to their "theories" for a good long while now. All we get are the same tired out debunked arguments.

Not all the Christians are like that though, there are many intelligent theistic evolutionists on this board (myself included).

 

[SimpleDon]

Welcome to the board TIMMEH!

Yes, unfortunately we've been waiting for the "evidence" to their "theories" for a good long while now. All we get are the same tired out debunked arguments.

Not all the Christians are like that though, there are many intelligent theistic evolutionists on this board (myself included).

Have we even seen their theories?

Which considering the discussions here should be their facts, since they put so little faith in theories.

I am involved with a 'lack of transitional fossil' discussion with a YEC on another board. As soon as I asked for his/her fossils in the geological column theory, they disappeared. Having nothing else to do I was tempted to try to guess their theory. Since it is going to be wasted there I thought would present it here.

I am always intrigued by creationist discussions about the theory of evolution and fossil support for it. They believe 'lack of transitional fossils' or 'polystrate fossils' or 'anomalous fossils' or some other argument completely blows evolution theory out of the water. And without evolution we are left with a scientific theory which apparently involves hundreds of billions of animals and plants treading water during a world wide flood, sinking to the bottom over a hundred days in a near perfect sequence which only simulates evolution, becoming fossilized almost instantly. Meanwhile millions of individuals of modern species (including humans) who missed the boat were dying and not fossilizing (selective fossilization?).

And because no flaws can be found in this 'treading flood water' fossil theory logic it is better than the one that supports evolution.

Am I close? (tongue firmly in cheek)

dcs

 

[Gus2009]

The second law, more notably the law of entropy, states that closed (without an outside energy source) energy systems have a tendency to increase their entropy, in essence slowing down altogether.

Why does the second law cause them to slow down? Speed and entropy are not nessecarily dependent although they can be i guess. In fact gases have a higher entropy state than solids and liquids and the gases molecules are moving faster.

As a quick experiment, take 2 lego blocks, and put them in a bag, then shake the bag. Statistically, what are the chances that the blocks will eventually connect correctly?

Probably not very high. From the standpoint of just the blocks connecting it would seem youve actually achieved an isentropic process, at least in a philosophical sense. They are no more likely to connect than they were at first, and if youre defining entropy from this standpoint then there has been no entropy change. Now, take the blocks out then force them together. Youve "reduced their entropy" if you will, big deal. Im not sure why nature is analagous to shaking the bag though and not forcing the blocks together. Things come together all the time in nature when there is kinetic energy , atoms bond to form moleclues, electrons and protons form atoms etc. Planets form from dust, dust collects in dustbunnies. It just so happens that youre applying kinetic energy in a way that isnt very condusive to the blocks fitting together, so what? I think youre analogy would be more analagous to something like a plasma where the molecules are so hot that electrons and protons are stripped from each other an just fly around in a "ion soup"(although it isnt a perfect analogy, maybe if the blocks were magnetic). But i dont think the bag is a good analogy for primodial earth.

How then, can a bio-mechanical system as complex as a cell can come together on its own? By its own definition, the second law of thermodynamics PROHIBITS this from even taking place.

Not at all. It simply says that the organization needed an external energy source which is just fine.

A complex system is more likely to break down overtime, and not become more complex without outside influences. What kind of influence would be needed to create such a complex biological apparatus? You decide.

Sure, radiation from the sun, convection in the air, conduction through solids, chemistry, gravity i could go on and on. I dont know much about abiogenesis from a biological or chemistry prespective but a generalized second law analysis doesnt dissalow it. It just says it needs an external energy source.

 

[Patashu]

Laws of science are simply stand-alone equations that act as rules of thumb to explain one physical concept. They can have exceptions but they are generally correct. Ex law of universal gravitation does not take into account relativity. Second law of thermodynamics doesn't hold in very very small systems (on the order of a few atoms).
Theories are broad and unify many observations within a field under one common explanation. They are continually updated and refined as evidence comes up.

They are different.

 

[Adivi]

laws of thermodynamics

The sun is the outside energy source for the earth. You fail.

 

[WorldIsMine]

Sure someone has made this point, but the Earth is not a closed system, and the amount of energy lost by the sun in entropy as it engages in its super-nuclear pyrotechnics show is far greater than the increases in organization here on Earth.

 

[Loudmouth]

A complex system is more likely to break down overtime, and not become more complex without outside influences. What kind of influence would be needed to create such a complex biological apparatus? You decide.

Does creationism strip the mind of all reason and logic? Do creationists forget really simple biological facts?

You do realize that you, I, and everyone on this board started out as a single cell. According to your diatribe we should not exist as complex biomechanical people. We should still be nice, round fertilized eggs.

We can easily say that this is probably the biggest and most damaging gap to the theory of evolution, at least when it concerns macro-evolution . . .

Macroevolution has been observed both in the lab and in the wild.

Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

and the theory of the origin of life. The evolutionary theory might explain what general adaptability is attributed to, but it comes short from explaining the origin of life.[/quote]