Facts about Evolution

Veritasinhabitum

New Member
Mar 21, 2016
3
6
27
Canada
✟7,653.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
A secular friend asked me if I believe in evolution. Here is a couple of the things I told him.

Observable physio/anatomical changes in organisms:

Rearrangement/ activation of segments of existing genetic material which result in the modification of anatomical or physiological attributes, or in other words the process of speciation as facilitated by adaptive radiation, via natural selection of favourable traits.

What this proves is that finches turn into finches, humans turn into humans, and wolves turn into wolves, but the secularist asks: these variants, with all of their morphological disparity, surely warrant revised classification as distinct genuses or (with enough time) different families and orders?

Well it really depends on how one classifies organisms. The facts prove natural selection, but natural selection actually refutes evolution... That's correct, natural selection disproves Darwinian evolution because it is selecting on existing traits already present in the genetic material of organisms. Elaborated, rather than selecting on novel genetic material (which is a requisite to evolution) natural selection simply selects on differing expressions of pre-existent genetic material, so a coyote, wolf, and Saint Bernard, can be classified as one kind because they share the same genes (in respect to quantity and information present). Where they differ is in the expression of certain genes (activation and deactivation of parts of genetic material) which result in varying phenotypic traits. Therefore the limits of anatomical variation within a kind are literally programmed into its genome. Evolutionists try to argue that the variations in the genome of a kind are remnants of the organism's evolutionary past. This is ludicrous, if this theory was true then nothing would be related to anything because the genetic variations within one kind are completely different from the variations in the genome of other kinds that are believed to be closely related on the evolutionary tree.

Natural selection has nothing to do with evolution, there is no change in the genetic information present. Selection is not Alteration. in fact rather than blindly chanting their mantra, natural selection, evolutionists should be trying to explain how all the dog, coyote, Ethiopian wolf, jackal, and dire wolf phenotypes got into the canis genome in the first place. Given enough time, a wolf can and will adapt to exhibit coyote traits and vice versa. (Before someone acts all wise, Genetic drift, bottleneck effect, isolation, etc are all terms describing natural selection.)

Evolution requires the spontaneous generation of novel genetic material from (as of yet) unknown chemical processes. so far we have failed to observe even a single protein forming via abiogenic processes let alone the millions of segments of genetic code needed for the formation of novel phenotypes from an existing genome, and before one argues, no biological process has been known to create or incorporate new genetic material to an established genome. Thus far every known mutation has damaged the genome rather than add new information, if mutations demonstrate anything then the correct term should be degeneration.

The fossil record:

Remnants of organisms entombed in hundreds of metres of petrified sediment consisting largely of mudstone. These sedimentary rocks account for a negligible presence in the earth's crust which largely consists of igneous and metamorphic Rock. Similar to Natural Selection, the fossil record is another crux of evolution that runs contrary to evolution.

There are crippling chronological issues in the geologic column. For example, coelocanths are living fossils, but they are only found in mid-Mesozoic sediment deposits. Triops cancriformis, are present only in Pennsylvanian strata, and absent from later strata. Aside from the conundrum of the living fossils, many proposed ancestral forms have been found in younger strata than their alleged descendants. Archaeopteryx have been found in strata pre dating maniraptorans which theoretically evolved into birds, and platybelodons have been discovered beside elephants.

Quality of Preservation is also another oddity, one would think that the younger fossils would be better preserved due to reduced exposure to the effects of weathering. However that is simply not the case, the best preserved fossils of soft tissue organisms are consistently found in older strata, such as Cambrian and Ordivician fossils, (pikaia being one example). Ironically this fact actually strongly suggests that these creatures were buried more soundly and quickly than subsequent fossils. To make matters worst, all evolutionists believe that fossils were formed by rapid burial in estuarine (flood) sediments, and go on to admit that there has never been a flood of comparable magnitude in recorded history. Therefore, according to evolutionists there have been millions of huge floods in the earth's prehistory (and these floods have never been observed or studied) and these consecutive floods created the geologic column that we know today.

As for radiometric dating the word contamination, comes to mind. Ignoring the possibility of fluctuations in decay rates, which have already been exhaustively contested, evolutionists often obtain inconsistent dates from rocks. When faced with these inconsistencies they simply infer that the rock sample was contaminated, and thus an unreliable reference. In a nutshell radiometric dating infers the age of a sample, based on its chemical composition. This dating methods rests not on fact but an biased assumption of the chemical composition of the rock when it was first formed. Therefore I could make a pile of lead and uranium, and by adjusting the proportion of these elements, obtain any age I desire. Although I might have made it in a few hours radiometric testing could reveal hundreds of millions of years of slow formation.

In conclusion it is amazing how one could challenge evolution solely using the scientific facts of evolution.
 

Hoghead1

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2015
4,908
741
77
✟8,968.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
A secular friend asked me if I believe in evolution. Here is a couple of the things I told him.

Observable physio/anatomical changes in organisms:

Rearrangement/ activation of segments of existing genetic material which result in the modification of anatomical or physiological attributes, or in other words the process of speciation as facilitated by adaptive radiation, via natural selection of favourable traits.

What this proves is that finches turn into finches, humans turn into humans, and wolves turn into wolves, but the secularist asks: these variants, with all of their morphological disparity, surely warrant revised classification as distinct genuses or (with enough time) different families and orders?

Well it really depends on how one classifies organisms. The facts prove natural selection, but natural selection actually refutes evolution... That's correct, natural selection disproves Darwinian evolution because it is selecting on existing traits already present in the genetic material of organisms. Elaborated, rather than selecting on novel genetic material (which is a requisite to evolution) natural selection simply selects on differing expressions of pre-existent genetic material, so a coyote, wolf, and Saint Bernard, can be classified as one kind because they share the same genes (in respect to quantity and information present). Where they differ is in the expression of certain genes (activation and deactivation of parts of genetic material) which result in varying phenotypic traits. Therefore the limits of anatomical variation within a kind are literally programmed into its genome. Evolutionists try to argue that the variations in the genome of a kind are remnants of the organism's evolutionary past. This is ludicrous, if this theory was true then nothing would be related to anything because the genetic variations within one kind are completely different from the variations in the genome of other kinds that are believed to be closely related on the evolutionary tree.

Natural selection has nothing to do with evolution, there is no change in the genetic information present. Selection is not Alteration. in fact rather than blindly chanting their mantra, natural selection, evolutionists should be trying to explain how all the dog, coyote, Ethiopian wolf, jackal, and dire wolf phenotypes got into the canis genome in the first place. Given enough time, a wolf can and will adapt to exhibit coyote traits and vice versa. (Before someone acts all wise, Genetic drift, bottleneck effect, isolation, etc are all terms describing natural selection.)

Evolution requires the spontaneous generation of novel genetic material from (as of yet) unknown chemical processes. so far we have failed to observe even a single protein forming via abiogenic processes let alone the millions of segments of genetic code needed for the formation of novel phenotypes from an existing genome, and before one argues, no biological process has been known to create or incorporate new genetic material to an established genome. Thus far every known mutation has damaged the genome rather than add new information, if mutations demonstrate anything then the correct term should be degeneration.

The fossil record:

Remnants of organisms entombed in hundreds of metres of petrified sediment consisting largely of mudstone. These sedimentary rocks account for a negligible presence in the earth's crust which largely consists of igneous and metamorphic Rock. Similar to Natural Selection, the fossil record is another crux of evolution that runs contrary to evolution.

There are crippling chronological issues in the geologic column. For example, coelocanths are living fossils, but they are only found in mid-Mesozoic sediment deposits. Triops cancriformis, are present only in Pennsylvanian strata, and absent from later strata. Aside from the conundrum of the living fossils, many proposed ancestral forms have been found in younger strata than their alleged descendants. Archaeopteryx have been found in strata pre dating maniraptorans which theoretically evolved into birds, and platybelodons have been discovered beside elephants.

Quality of Preservation is also another oddity, one would think that the younger fossils would be better preserved due to reduced exposure to the effects of weathering. However that is simply not the case, the best preserved fossils of soft tissue organisms are consistently found in older strata, such as Cambrian and Ordivician fossils, (pikaia being one example). Ironically this fact actually strongly suggests that these creatures were buried more soundly and quickly than subsequent fossils. To make matters worst, all evolutionists believe that fossils were formed by rapid burial in estuarine (flood) sediments, and go on to admit that there has never been a flood of comparable magnitude in recorded history. Therefore, according to evolutionists there have been millions of huge floods in the earth's prehistory (and these floods have never been observed or studied) and these consecutive floods created the geologic column that we know today.

As for radiometric dating the word contamination, comes to mind. Ignoring the possibility of fluctuations in decay rates, which have already been exhaustively contested, evolutionists often obtain inconsistent dates from rocks. When faced with these inconsistencies they simply infer that the rock sample was contaminated, and thus an unreliable reference. In a nutshell radiometric dating infers the age of a sample, based on its chemical composition. This dating methods rests not on fact but an biased assumption of the chemical composition of the rock when it was first formed. Therefore I could make a pile of lead and uranium, and by adjusting the proportion of these elements, obtain any age I desire. Although I might have made it in a few hours radiometric testing could reveal hundreds of millions of years of slow formation.

In conclusion it is amazing how one could challenge evolution solely using the scientific facts of evolution.

Interesting, but presents too much misinformation and stereotyping of science. Although some laity here feel they know far more about it than the scientist. I go with the truly educated and highly qualified experts. That way, I cam maintain some real degree of quality control in my belief system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Armoured
Upvote 0

Veritasinhabitum

New Member
Mar 21, 2016
3
6
27
Canada
✟7,653.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Hello Hoghead1,

Could you please point out where I have offered misinformation? I admit I am still in my sophomore year studying paleontology, (namely paleobotany and geology) so I might not be an "expert" on my field. However I am definitely acquainted with evolution since paleontology is the story of evolution.

I always appreciate your replies, after all iron sharpens iron right?
 
Upvote 0

Hoghead1

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2015
4,908
741
77
✟8,968.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
So finches don't stay finches .. I think I get it .. That explains how the finches became the Galapagos tortoise .. LOL
They evolved into different species of finches, however. No one is claiming they became the tortoise. If that is what you think evolution is claiming or should be claiming here, then you simply do not understand evolution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pgp_protector
Upvote 0

Swan7

Made in the image of His Grace
Supporter
Aug 3, 2014
9,158
7,354
Forever Summer
✟435,986.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
MOD HAT ON

This thread went through a clean up of Off Topic and Flaming posts.

d6bd3a_f7e1ee1e4f2440ba8468d6ce356780c3.jpg_256


If your post is missing it is because a post that was deleted was quoted. :angel: Sorry for the inconvenience! :angel:

Please remember to abide by the CF Rules

Flaming and Goading
Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.
Do not personally attack other members or groups of members on CF. Address only the content of the post and not the poster.
NO Goading. This includes images, cartoons, or smileys clearly meant to goad.
Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed.
If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button.


Statement of Purpose and Off-Topic
Read and abide by each forum's Statement of Purpose; Statement of Purpose threads are sticky threads located at the top of the forum's page. Not all forums have a Statement of Purpose thread. Start threads that are relevant to that forum's stated purpose. Submit replies that are relevant to the topic of discussion.


CHIBI+KOBATO.gif

:clap: Thank you! :clap:

MOD HAT OFF
 
  • Like
Reactions: FreeinChrist
Upvote 0

Goodbook

Reading the Bible
Jan 22, 2011
22,090
5,106
New Zealand
Visit site
✟78,865.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Darwin was so british. He thought all the animals on Gods green earth had to be english. All other kinds of animals to him were freaks. I can see him racking his brains. Huh? Those animals look so different. They MUST have come from england and changed their looks. Cos england is the best country ever, and every other kind of animal that ive never seen before looks different and is so weird I must explain it somehow. Lol.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hoghead1

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2015
4,908
741
77
✟8,968.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Darwin was so british. He thought all the animals on Gods green earth had to be english. All other kinds of animals to him were freaks. I can see him racking his brains. Huh? Those animals look so different. They MUST have come from england and changed their looks. Cos england is the best country ever, and every other kind of animal that ive never seen before looks different and is so weird I must explain it somehow. Lol.
Where on earth did you come up with that idea about Darwin?
 
Upvote 0