For creationists: give me your arguments against evolution.

[Split Rock]

Good thread. For starters: Weak faith. for instance, I don't have enough faith to believe that all the information contained in DNA came about by pure chance.

That's nice... neither do we. Nice straw man, though.

But then, I also have a hard time believing the newspaper in my family room, which also contains information although far far less than a DNA strand, came about by pure chance; so, no big surprise, huh? i just simply don't have enough faith.

blessings,
H.

I guess you don't have enough "faith" to believe that Jesus is your savior either, huh? You did say that your "faith" was weak...

 

[Split Rock]

Maybe if the theory itself didn't evolve so much. And I really don't get the whole "theistic evolution" movement, either...where's the scriptural backup for a God-initiated evolution process?

Theistic evolutionists don't use scripture to back up evolution (the vast majority, anyway). They simply accept the reality that we evolved, but don't let that interfere with their faith in Jesus as their savior.

 

[Loudmouth]

And you can be absolutely sure they're all transitional leading to humans? How?

You can't know the ancestors of any fossil unless you extract DNA from the fossil and sequence it. Wikipedia has a good definition of transitional fossil:

A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.[1] This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, we can't assume transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.
Transitional fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

What we are doing with fossils is testing the theory of evolution. The fossils are the repeatable observations that are used to test the theory of what happened in the past. If humans evolved from a common ancestor with other apes, then there had to be a point along our lineage where populations had a mixture of human-like and ape-like features. Even if there were a side branch to our lineage, that side branch would still have features that were found in the direct lineage. As Darwin put it:

In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition.
The Origin of Species: Chapter 6​

"Collateral descendants" would be side branches that were not our direct ancestors. In the world of cladistics, no species is shown as being a direct ancestor of another:

What we are saying is that the theory of evolution predicts that there should have been species in the past 5 million years that had a mixture of ape and human features, and these fossils are evidence that the theory is correct. Just as importantly, the theory also predicts that you should NOT see fossils with a mixture of features that would violate a nested hierarchy. In the case of ape transitionals, fossils that have a mixture of ape and canine features would falsify the theory of evolution.

Each and every fossil is a test of the theory, and all of the fossils we find fit the predictions that the theory makes.

So, thus far, we have chimps who are our cousins but not our ancestors. They survived. Apparently, none of the other transitionals viewed them as competition. But all the species in between who are also our cousins didn't make it due to competition with H. sapiens.

Yes. Hunter-gatherer humans that seemed to prefer more open spaces did not compete with the chimp lineage which evolved in dense forest.

These seem to be pretty huge leaps. Macroevolution? A fork in the tree which leads to chimps from gorillas (though we still have both living among us today), but nothing left between chimps and us but fossils. What do we have between gorillas and chimps, or are they all fossils too?

If H. erectus was still alive, the gap between us and H. erectus would still be considered macroevolution. Macroevolution is simply speciation.

You asked for side branches of the human lineage that were still alive after diverging from another ape species. Chimps are just that. Chimps share more DNA with us than they do with gorillas. Chimps share a more recent ancestor with humans than they do with either gorillas or orangutans.

I understand your analogy, but I don't see how it applies to human family relations.

We share a common ancestor with chimps like we share a common ancestor with our cousins.

Would you say the same of humans? If so, would you mark that as a type of evolution?

I would say that all species are evolving, including humans. As to type of evolution, I guess I don't understand what you are referring to.

 

[freezerman2000]

Theistic evolutionists don't use scripture to back up evolution (the vast majority, anyway). They simply accept the reality that we evolved, but don't let that interfere with their faith in Jesus as their savior.

Amen..
I am in that camp.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why would rank violate the rules?

A 4 should only be found in one suit, or all cards of every suit should be a 4. If we have suit evolving before rank, then you would require rank to evolve independently in all 4 suits. That doesn't work. Evolution can't evolve the exact same adaptation in a whole bunch of different branches. That is why we see fur only in the mammal branch, and feathers only in the dinosaur branch.

This from "Nested Heirarchy For Dummies",


"In the Army example we would be classifying the US Army which is broken up into Field Armies, which contain and consist of Corps, which contain and consist of Divisions, which contain and consist of Brigades, which contain and consist of Battalions, which contain and consist of Companies, which contain and consist of Platoons, which contain and consist of Squads & Sections. Squads and sections contain and consist of soldiers. Each level, down to the soldier, has a well defined role and place in the scheme."

Doesn't "well defined role and place" imply rank?

Species don't report orders to one another. Also, if we consider the distribution of equipment as the distribution of characteristics, we find that the Army divisions violate a nested hierarchy. We will find the same equipment in two Companies in different Battalions, but different equipment between Companies in the same Battalion. You will even find the same airplanes shared by a division in the Marines and Navy. If the military followed a nested hierarchy, this would mean that all divisions in the Marines and Navy would have the same jets, or modifications of those jets. This isn't the case.

 

[Loudmouth]

All science says is that natural selection directs evolution. Therefore I conclude that evolution has a predetermined direction.

What evidence led you to that conclusion? Or would you consider it more of a religious or faith based belief?

A quote from Darwin that may be of interest:

It can hardly be supposed that a false theory would explain, in so satisfactory a manner as does the theory of natural selection, the several large classes of facts above specified. It has recently been objected that this is an unsafe method of arguing; but it is a method used in judging of the common events of life, and has often been used by the greatest natural philosophers ... I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one. It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely, the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz, "as subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion." A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws."
—Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859)​

I find that to be an interesting comparison between evolution and gravity. Evolution is just as mechanistic as gravity is. If you say that God guides evolution, would you say that God guides gravity in the same sense?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Wha.....

In no way do I follow that logic..I said, how did complex DNA etc miraculously form, out of the blue. That's an Olympic jump to your statement.

Sorry to invade the converstaion here...
But eum...

The only people claiming that DNA miraculously appeared out of the blue are creationists.

Not a single biologist says it appeared out of the blue - let alone miraculously.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Genetics can only be applied to living species.

Yes, which is what he said.

We can use DNA of me and my sister to see if we are sibblings.
We can use DNA of me and a random person to see how far back we share an ancestor.

We can use DNA of species A and random species B to see how far back they share an ancestor.

Do that for a lot of species and the hierarchical tree emerges.

Do the same but based on anatomy instead of genetics and you get the same tree.

Cross reference these trees with geographic distribution of species and planets and it fits like a glove.

One way or another, the suggested fossil sequence, and even the idea of common ancestry, is simply a wishful story.

No, it's not.
It's the result of multiple independent converging lines of evidence.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Actually it is either pure chance or a guiding force.



Natural selection is a very intelligent force. It eliminates chance and proceeds directly towards a predetermined goal.

No to both statements.

There are random elements involved, and there are guides as well. Note how whales and fish have superficially similar shapes . . . . due to the constraints of what streamlining has to be shaped like . . . and note the differences in the tail alignment.

Natural selection isn't intelligent. It just happens.

However, setting up the universe in which natural selection can occur . . . that could be considered intelligent.

 

[roman2819]

Creationists would say that evolution is a theory, and evolutionists say that creation is a theory. ''

This is my personal view "I was NOT a believer by birth. One day, I asked a friend why he believed that God existed, and he said, “Look at the creation. How come all these happen by itself without God?” )(My friend was referring to the wonders of nature, the ecology and millions of life forms.) Though not a Christian yet, I found it difficult to deny that what there was a ring of truth in what he said. In school, we were told about the theory of evolution, which proposes that life began by itself and gradually became what we see today. Intuitively, however, I felt that it was just too far-fetched to believe that millions of species could have evolved all by themselves into such a highly-sophisticated state: The
possibility is just too minute.... "
Quoted from Pg 186, "Understanding Prayer Faith and God's will" Second Edition.

Where I come from, most people are NOT Christians by birth, but I do know that there are many non-believers who do not or could not deny that God exists, in part due to the wonders of creation that we see around us. I believe that intuitively, many people feel that there must have been a Creater and Designer.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Creationists would say that evolution is a theory, and evolutionists say that creation is a theory. ''

This is my personal view "I was NOT a believer by birth. One day, I asked a friend why he believed that God existed, and he said, “Look at the creation. How come all these happen by itself without God?” )(My friend was referring to the wonders of nature, the ecology and millions of life forms.) Though not a Christian yet, I found it difficult to deny that what there was a ring of truth in what he said. In school, we were told about the theory of evolution, which proposes that life began by itself and gradually became what we see today. Intuitively, however, I felt that it was just too far-fetched to believe that millions of species could have evolved all by themselves into such a highly-sophisticated state: The
possibility is just too minute.... "
Quoted from Pg 186, "Understanding Prayer Faith and God's will" Second Edition.

Where I come from, most people are NOT Christians by birth, but I do know that there are many non-believers who do not or could not deny that God exists, in part due to the wonders of creation that we see around us. I believe that intuitively, many people feel that there must have been a Creater and Designer.

 

[Split Rock]

Creationists would say that evolution is a theory, and evolutionists say that creation is a theory. ''

No.

Evolution is a scientific theory.

Creationism as it exists in the USA today is a dogmatic religious belief. Some creationists pretend it is a scientific theory, when it is not.

Where I come from, most people are NOT Christians by birth, but I do know that there are many non-believers who do not or could not deny that God exists, in part due to the wonders of creation that we see around us. I believe that intuitively, many people feel that there must have been a Creater and Designer.

Intuition is not always reliable.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Creationists would say that evolution is a theory, and evolutionists say that creation is a theory. ''

This is my personal view "I was NOT a believer by birth. One day, I asked a friend why he believed that God existed, and he said, “Look at the creation. How come all these happen by itself without God?” )(My friend was referring to the wonders of nature, the ecology and millions of life forms.) Though not a Christian yet, I found it difficult to deny that what there was a ring of truth in what he said. In school, we were told about the theory of evolution, which proposes that life began by itself and gradually became what we see today. Intuitively, however, I felt that it was just too far-fetched to believe that millions of species could have evolved all by themselves into such a highly-sophisticated state: The
possibility is just too minute.... "
Quoted from Pg 186, "Understanding Prayer Faith and God's will" Second Edition.

I find it difficult to believe that the Creator of the universe came about all by Himself, with all the capabilities and wondrous grace and love we are told about today. Intuitively, I feel that it was just too far-fetched to believe that the Almighty simply came into existence without a designer to produce such a highly-sophisticated state: The
possibility is just too minute....

Where I come from, most people are NOT Christians by birth, but I do know that there are many non-believers who do not or could not deny that God exists, in part due to the wonders of creation that we see around us. I believe that intuitively, many people feel that there must have been a Creater and Designer.

And, intuitively, the Earth is flat with the stars and planets moving around it.

Perhaps intuition is not the best method for determination of truth.

 

[Loudmouth]

Creationists would say that evolution is a theory, and evolutionists say that creation is a theory. '

I would say that creationism is a dogmatic religious belief, not a theory.

This is my personal view "I was NOT a believer by birth. One day, I asked a friend why he believed that God existed, and he said, “Look at the creation. How come all these happen by itself without God?” )(My friend was referring to the wonders of nature, the ecology and millions of life forms.) Though not a Christian yet, I found it difficult to deny that what there was a ring of truth in what he said. In school, we were told about the theory of evolution, which proposes that life began by itself and gradually became what we see today. Intuitively, however, I felt that it was just too far-fetched to believe that millions of species could have evolved all by themselves into such a highly-sophisticated state: The
possibility is just too minute.... "
Quoted from Pg 186, "Understanding Prayer Faith and God's will" Second Edition.

Where I come from, most people are NOT Christians by birth, but I do know that there are many non-believers who do not or could not deny that God exists, in part due to the wonders of creation that we see around us. I believe that intuitively, many people feel that there must have been a Creater and Designer.

An argument from incredulity is considered a logical fallacy.

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that essentially relies on a lack of imagination in the audience.

The general form of the argument is as follows.
Minor premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so.
Major premise (unstated): If P, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how P could be so.
Conclusion: Not-P.
Argument from incredulity - RationalWiki​

 

[juvenissun]

Yes, which is what he said.

We can use DNA of me and my sister to see if we are sibblings.
We can use DNA of me and a random person to see how far back we share an ancestor.

Is that the idea of "common ancestor"? Don't be naive. You made the same mistake as sfs made.

 

[Hupomone10]

After all this time . . . after the theory of evolution has been around over 150 years . . . why does it not occur to you that pure chance is not the explanation evolutionary theory offers?

Are you deliberately ignoring what evolution theory says, or are you merely insulated completely from what evolution theory says?

Hint for the quiz: natural selection plays a part.

Good thread. For starters: Weak faith. for instance, I don't have enough faith to believe that all the information contained in DNA came about by natural selection rather than an Intelligent Being.

But then, I also have a hard time believing the newspaper in my family room, which also contains information although far far less than a DNA strand, came about by natural selection (or pure chance) rather than intelligent beings; so, no big surprise, huh? i just simply don't have enough faith.

blessings,
H.

 

[Loudmouth]

Is that the idea of "common ancestor"? Don't be naive. You made the same mistake as sfs made.

You haven't shown that anyone has made a mistake. We need more than empty accusations. We need some evidence and science to back your claims.

 

[Loudmouth]

Good thread. For starters: Weak faith. for instance, I don't have enough faith to believe that all the information contained in DNA came about by natural selection rather than an Intelligent Being.

But then, I also have a hard time believing the newspaper in my family room, which also contains information although far far less than a DNA strand, came about by natural selection (or pure chance) rather than intelligent beings; so, no big surprise, huh? i just simply don't have enough faith.

blessings,
H.

Are you saying that faith is bad?

Also, you are using an argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy.

 

[SkyWriting]

Scientists find fakes, not armchair creationists like yourself.

I work full time in product development.
15 years in specialty chemical R&D.
Though I must confess, my chair at work has arms.

 

[Split Rock]

Good thread. For starters: Weak faith. for instance, I don't have enough faith to believe that all the information contained in DNA came about by natural selection rather than an Intelligent Being.

But then, I also have a hard time believing the newspaper in my family room, which also contains information although far far less than a DNA strand, came about by natural selection (or pure chance) rather than intelligent beings; so, no big surprise, huh? i just simply don't have enough faith.

blessings,
H.

I don't have enough faith to believe in creationism. That is why I accept the theory of evolution as the best scientific explanation for the diversity and distribution of life on Earth.