If evolutionary theory is so wrong then why is it used?

pmh1nic said:

This is the physical mechanism that you SPECULATE drives evolution but it has NOT been proven and it does violate the laws of physics.
.

Click to expand...

No, it is the physical mechanism that has been observed to cause evolution and is accepted by creationists as an actual phenomena. In fact, many YEC or ID theories depend on it.

You might want to follow up with some of your ID research and make sure they don't rely on the same mechanisms. You might just falsify ID if you are not careful. I know you wouldn't want that.

Chi_Cygni

"Would you please tell me HOW it violates the laws of physics?"

2nd Law of Thermodynamics

Inorgan matter (simple)...ameoba (complex)...human being (more complex). The THEORY of evolution may say that happens but the LAW of thermodynamics says it doesn't.

Vance

"AIG agrees that the evolutionary process as described by science works"

Depends on what you mean by "evolutionary process." Do species adapt and change? Yes. Do species adapt and change to become another species or better yet that inorganic matter somehow reorganizes itself into tremendously complex micro organisms? Nothing in evolutionary "science" comes close to proving that this happened.

pmh1nic,

I do wish creationists would quit throwing out the 2nd law when most (if not all) of them don't understand how you apply it.

To make definitive statements regarding thermodynamics you need to be sure that you have taken into account all the processes and parts of the system being investigated.

I believe you rejected the raindrop/snowflake analogy I mentioned earlier in this thread - but it is a valid point thermodynamically.


Evolution != abiogenesis.

Actually do you really not know this or are you repeating things just to be contrary.

Will you also tell me the reason you feel you know more about thermodynamics than physicists?

Chi_Cygni

Your raindrop/snowflake analogy is not analogies to inorganic matter becoming living cells. It's also not a valid point with respect to thermodynamics. A snowflake is water. It's shape/structure has changed (binding forces) but it's still water.

There is no science that supports complex, organic, living things having sprung into being from inorganic matter. A lot of speculation but nothing proven via the scientific method. There is no hard scientific proof of an ameoba through mutation and natural selection becoming man. None. All you have is isolated facts tied together by supposition as evidence for the evolutionary origins of man.

A cornerstone of evolutionary theory is that inorganic matter became "alive." Explain to me the processes that causes that to happen. Also explain to me what forces were at work to cause a simply (actually very complex) single cell organism whose function is controlled by a very complex program (DNA) to reprogram itself into an infinite number of other types of living organisms which are vastly more complex. Then tell me what laboratory experiments have been conduct that have repeated that process.

Nice Stramen you got ther pmh1nic.

Can you now let us know what mechanism used in evolutionary theory violates any laws of physics? You still haven't done that. A theory cannot violate laws of physics, only actual physical mechanisms can.

Evolution does not ay that a single cell organism 'reprogramed' itself into anything.

Populations evolve, individuals don't. Evolution depends on two very observable, very real phenomena. In any population of organisms, there most likely will be genetic diversity. If there is genetic diversity, the environment will select for survivability. Over time, the population will change its characteristics based on this selection. This is all evolution says, no more, no less.

Evolutionary theory does not care where the first self replicating organisms came from (that is a different field of study). For all we know, God created it.

Evolution only explains variation of life, not the start of it.

pmh1nic said:

Chi_Cygni

"Would you please tell me HOW it violates the laws of physics?"

2nd Law of Thermodynamics

Inorgan matter (simple)...ameoba (complex)...human being (more complex). The THEORY of evolution may say that happens but the LAW of thermodynamics says it doesn't.

Click to expand...

But pmh1nic - this isn't evolution. The nearest thing to it is embryology - where a single celled organism (a zygote) develops into a human being. The interesting thing about this, of course, is that we know it does happen - 6 billion walking evidences inhabit the earth - if your understand of the SLoT were correct, then we could not exist.

Vance

"AIG agrees that the evolutionary process as described by science works"

Depends on what you mean by "evolutionary process." Do species adapt and change? Yes. Do species adapt and change to become another species or better yet that inorganic matter somehow reorganizes itself into tremendously complex micro organisms? Nothing in evolutionary "science" comes close to proving that this happened.

Click to expand...

Your alternative explanations of shared retro-viral insertions and the human chomosome 2 fusion event are invited. I won't hold my breath since creationists hardly ever attempt to address these.

"Do species adapt and change to become another species . . .?"

Please check out AIG on this point, it is found in their list of arguments that YEC's should no longer use:

‘No new species have been produced.’ This is not true—new species have been observed to form.

found here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

You might want to check out what they say about the second law of Thermodynamics as well.

Notto

"In any population of organisms, there most likely will be genetic diversity"

Genetic diversity doesn't equate to new species it means diversity within species. You've got human beings with diversities of skin, hair and eye color but they're all human beings. Natural selection and diversity within species does not explain evolution.


Karl - Liberal Backslider

"But pmh1nic - this isn't evolution."

If what I described is not evolution then we've got some very screwed up teaching going on in our public school system.

"The interesting thing about this, of course, is that we know it does happen - 6 billion walking evidences inhabit the earth - if your understand of the SLoT were correct, then we could not exist."

Wrong. That zygote has all the genetic programing required to mature (not evolve) into a fully functioning human being. Evolution states that simple, single cell organism (or better yet inorganic matter) mutated, changed its genetic structure and somehow resulted in an infinitely more complex being, man.

Vance

You assume I necessarily agree with everything with everything in AIG literature. That said the transition from ape to man is a problem (that has not been proven) but the least of the evolutionist problem. There are numerous levels of transition starting from the inorganic to the organ that cannot be explained by evolutionist.

As far as the 2nd law of Thermodynamics is concerned, the burden of proof is on the evolutionist to show that this LAW (including the connected arguments regarding complexity spontaneous springing up from the simple) has been overcome by the evolutionary process.

The raindow to snowflake example doesn't wash. It's still a molecule of water. The binding forces are programmed into the water droplet (the physically properties of water). When a raindrop freezes you're not creating something of higher complexity. Removing heat energy releases the forces and sets in motion the "programing" that results in a snowflake.

pmh1nic said:

Notto

"In any population of organisms, there most likely will be genetic diversity"

Genetic diversity doesn't equate to new species it means diversity within species. You've got human beings with diversities of skin, hair and eye color but they're all human beings. Natural selection and diversity within species does not explain evolution.

As far as the 2nd law of Thermodynamics is concerned, the burden of proof is on the evolutionist to show that this LAW (including the connected arguments regarding complexity spontaneous springing up from the simple) has been overcome by the evolutionary process.

Click to expand...

We will show you how evolution overcomes the second law if you can show us what mechanism is breaking it. You have yet to do that. The burden of proof is on YOU to tell us what that is. All of the mechanisms that are included in the theory of evolution have BEEN OBSERVED. No observed phenomena or physical mechanism can be breaking the laws of physics, can it?

Genetic diversity leads to evolution because of natural selection. Natural selection leads to evolution and diversity of species. You can deny it, but it has been observed in the lab and the wild. We have observed speciation.

You seem to be ignorant of scientific findings, laws of nature, and the actual theory of evolution you attack. Perhaps you should question the sources you have been using. They have misled you on many points it would seem.

pmh1nic,

In post #41 you stated -

Seriously, I'm not a scientist but I've read enough on both sides of the debate to realize that evolution is a theory with some very real difficulties and conflicts with laws of physics and scientific observation.

Click to expand...

Please list those conflicts for us, at least a couple of them. And yes, since you made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.

pmh1nic said:

Karl - Liberal Backslider

"But pmh1nic - this isn't evolution."

If what I described is not evolution then we've got some very screwed up teaching going on in our public school system.

Click to expand...

Evidently. No-one told you that organisms do not evolve. Populations do. And amoebae are modern animals with a long evolutionary history. We could not have evolved from an amoeba because we must have evolved from a unicellular organism that was around billions of years ago, not one that's around now.

"The interesting thing about this, of course, is that we know it does happen - 6 billion walking evidences inhabit the earth - if your understand of the SLoT were correct, then we could not exist."

Click to expand...

Wrong. That zygote has all the genetic programing required to mature (not evolve) into a fully functioning human being.

Click to expand...

Which is the nearest thing we have to an amoeba becoming a man. The genetic code provides a mechanism whereby this can happen.

Evolution states that simple, single cell organism (or better yet inorganic matter) mutated, changed its genetic structure and somehow resulted in an infinitely more complex being, man.

Click to expand...

No, not infinitely. Just more. But you make it sound impossible by missing out the millions of generations of descent with modification.

Again - which actual process defies the SLoT? All that is required for evolution is reproduction, selection and death. Which of these is impossible under the SLoT?

Notto and The Bear

I've list one of the major conflicts in my earlier post. You've decide to ignor it and not address it. The reason you won't address it is because your speculation that higher levels of order spontaneously spring forth, a concept that defies known laws of physic and observation, has not been proven by evolutionist. Evolutionist isolated facts and offer speculation that it happen but it defies laws of physic and observation.

It also defies logic. The thought that the extremely complex biological systems (exceedingly more complex than anything man with all of his intelligence has been able to devise) came into being through the random clashing together of atoms is exceeding improbable and requires tremendous faith. Some have caluculated the probabilities and it approaches the impossible.

Accepting evolution as the answer for the origins of live is a matter of faith based in some fact strung together with a lot of supposition (if, possibly, maybe, could have, might have, etc.). In is much more logical and much more scientifically sound, knowing what we know about the laws that govern the universe, to believe that there is intelligence behind the order and complexity we see in the universe.

IMHO the burdern of proof (proof that has not been supplied) is on the evolutionist. At the core of evolutionary theory is a faith in unproven speculations that via mutations (known to be for the most part detriment and on very, very rare occassions considered neutral) and natural selection we exist. I don't share that faith.

pmh1nic said:

Notto and The Bear

I've list one of the major conflicts in my earlier post. You've decide to ignor it and not address it. The reason you won't address it is because your speculation that higher levels of order spontaneously spring forth, a concept that defies known laws of physic and observation, has not been proven by evolutionist. Evolutionist isolated facts and offer speculation that it happen but it defies laws of physic and observation.

Click to expand...

But I have addressed it. I have pointed out that there is not a single process within evolution that requires a breach of the SLoT. Only by stating it in such broad terms as to be meaningless can you manufacture a contradiction. Specifics!

Here is a specific situation. Tell me where the SLoT forbids it.

A bacterium has an enzyme that breaks down fructose, but not maltose. These bacteria live in an environment rich in fructose.

Some get transported off and land on a source with a little fructose, but lots of maltose.

Within this population, a mutation occurs on the fructose digesting enzyme that allows it to bind to maltose. This bacterium is naturally very successful, and reproduces. The maltose digesting bacteria indeed are very successful, and because they have more food sources reproduce quicker than the original form.

Within a few generations, the vast majority of the bacteria can digest maltose. Then the fructose source dries up completely, and the fructose only bacteria become extinct in this environment.

Where was the SLoT broken? That is evolution.

[quote[It also defies logic. The thought that the extremely complex biological systems (exceedingly more complex than anything man with all of his intelligence has been able to devise) came into being through the random clashing together of atoms is exceeding improbable and requires tremendous faith. [/quote]
And is a straw man. Atoms do not randomly clash together; they react according to specific chemical rules.

Some have caluculated the probabilities and it approaches the impossible.

Click to expand...

Which is perculiar, because we don't know what the starting point was extactly, nor what the first replicator was. How you measure the probability of getting from one unknown state to another, without clearly knowing the number of trials either, is a mystery to me.

Accepting evolution as the answer for the origins of live is a matter of faith based in some fact strung together with a lot of supposition (if, possibly, maybe, could have, might have, etc.).

Click to expand...

That defective education you mentioned at work again. Evolution doesn't deal with the origins of life.

In is much more logical and much more scientifically sound, knowing what we know about the laws that govern the universe, to believe that there is intelligence behind the order and complexity we see in the universe.

Click to expand...

No, it isn't. It is God of the Gaps. "We can't explain this with a natural explanation so Goddidit".

IMHO the burdern of proof (proof that has not been supplied) is on the evolutionist.

Click to expand...

Tough. Science doesn't do proof. If you reject evolution because it isn't proven (although you seem to be talking about abiogenesis now) then you must also reject the germ theory, wave/particle duality, relativity and quantum mechanics, because they are also unproven.

At the core of evolutionary theory is a faith in unproven speculations that via mutations (known to be for the most part detriment and on very, very rare occassions considered neutral

Click to expand...

No, the vast majority are neutral. The rare ones are beneficial. They're the important ones because NS weeds out the others.

and natural selection we exist. I don't share that faith.

Click to expand...

Not faith. Written in the very rocks.

Many things in science defy 'logic'. The way you are using 'logic' here is equivilent to 'common sense'. You cannot use common sense as your guide, just ask Einstein.

The only thing that can violate the 2nd law are actual physical phenomena, not theories, not broad concepts like you are describing, but actual, physical mechanisms, reactions, procesess, etc.

You have failed to list one that violate the 2nd law, in fact you have failed to list any at all.

Can you list the physical mechanisms that are involved in evolution? If you cannot, then your argument is without merit. How can you say something is impossible if you cannot even define it?

Please define for us the mechanisms and physical processes used in evolutionary theory. If you cannot do this, you argument is invalid. Now, you can keep digging, name a mechanism, or simply retract. Until you do one of these, this discussion is pointless.

This is a great example of how silly some creationists arguments are. Here we have someone who is meagerly informed about science, evolution, and physics, claiming that the vaste majority of scientists have 'missed' this glaring error in evolutionary theory. Of course the simple reason given for this would be that they simply want to deny God, even though many of those same scientists are Christian.

Talk about defying logic.

pmh1nic said:

IMHO the burdern of proof (proof that has not been supplied) is on the evolutionist. At the core of evolutionary theory is a faith in unproven speculations that via mutations (known to be for the most part detriment and on very, very rare occassions considered neutral) and natural selection we exist. I don't share that faith.

Click to expand...

This assertion again shows a misunderstanding of the science and mechanisms used in the formulation of evolutionary theory.

First off, in the human population, we all are walking around with many neutral mutations. The claim that only rarely are mutations neutral is complete bunk.

Mutations are mutations. The environment, through selection, determines what mutations are beneficial, neutral, or detrimental. At the outset, mutations cannot be determined to be beneficial or detrimental. It all depends on the environment the population is in.

A good example of this is the mutation (or series of mutations) that brought about sickle cell anemia. In a malaria free environment, this characteristic is indeed detrimental to the population, but in an environment where malaria is common, the characteristic provides protection against it. The benefit or detriment of this characteristic is determined by the environment the population finds itself in. In an environment where the population is exposed to malaria, the charateristic provides benefit, even with its problems, over the death and disease caused by malaria.

The increased occurance of sickle cell anemia in populations where malaria is present also is a good example of natural selection and the key aspects of evolutionary theory related to selection for survivability of diversity in a population.

There are several examples of observed, benefiial mutations:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

There are several examples of observed, beneficial mutations in humans:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html

pmh1nic said:

Notto and The Bear

I've list one of the major conflicts in my earlier post. You've decide to ignor it and not address it. The reason you won't address it is because your speculation that higher levels of order spontaneously spring forth, a concept that defies known laws of physic and observation, has not been proven by evolutionist. Evolutionist isolated facts and offer speculation that it happen but it defies laws of physic and observation.

It also defies logic. The thought that the extremely complex biological systems (exceedingly more complex than anything man with all of his intelligence has been able to devise) came into being through the random clashing together of atoms is exceeding improbable and requires tremendous faith. Some have caluculated the probabilities and it approaches the impossible.

Accepting evolution as the answer for the origins of live is a matter of faith based in some fact strung together with a lot of supposition (if, possibly, maybe, could have, might have, etc.). In is much more logical and much more scientifically sound, knowing what we know about the laws that govern the universe, to believe that there is intelligence behind the order and complexity we see in the universe.

IMHO the burdern of proof (proof that has not been supplied) is on the evolutionist. At the core of evolutionary theory is a faith in unproven speculations that via mutations (known to be for the most part detriment and on very, very rare occassions considered neutral) and natural selection we exist. I don't share that faith.

Click to expand...

Slow down there, cowboy. Don't presume to speak to my intentions, beliefs, faith or motives. I overlooked the point you said you made earlier. Just tell me what post it is, and I will look at it for myself. No need to read anything more into it.

Further, keeping emotional reactions and personal judgements of others out of these discussions, and just speaking to the points, will alleviate much distractions and misunderstandings, and make for a much more enjoyable and educational experience for all.

First off, can any one provide evidence of evolution?

Lonnie, there is tons of evidence, and that is like asking whether there is evidence for photosynthesis. You need to read up on it and ask a specific question about it. But the first thing you should know is that the leading Creationist organizations already accept the mechanics of evolution: genetic mutation, environmental pressures, natural selection, and change. They even agree that new species have been created by these processes. The ONLY that is still in dispute is whether evolution can create the large changes needed for widely divergent creatures we see today to have come from earlier common ancestors. Young Earth Creationists say no, evolution can not continue on to this level of change, but have failed to explain why it could not.

"Where was the SLoT broken? That is evolution."
"No-one told you that organisms do not evolve."

Your example is not an example of evolution it's an example of adaptation within a species.

But why start with a complex organism. Within that bacteria is a extremely complex genetic system. Explain to me how that system came into being from hydrogen.

"First off, in the human population, we all are walking around with many neutral mutations. The claim that only rarely are mutations neutral is complete bunk."

But evolution says those mutations result not just neutrality but a higher order and complexity. Where's the evidence? To say that we exist is evidence that this took place is a matter of faith on the part of the evolutionist.

"Slow down there, cowboy. Don't presume to speak to my intentions, beliefs, faith or motives....Further, keeping emotional reactions and personal judgements of others out of these discussions..."

No emotional reaction, presumptions or judgements on my part. But when you're repeatly asked the same question after giving the answer repeatly it seems a waste of energy to keep repeating it.

"No, it isn't. It is God of the Gaps. "We can't explain this with a natural explanation so Goddidit".

Or maybe it's we recognize the tremendous order to the working of the universe, the incredible complexity of life but rather than accept and investigate the possibility of an Intelligent Designer (or in the hope there isn't one) we'll pieces together facts and mix it with supposition to say that it's just a matter of time and the random clashing of atoms.

Again, as far as I've learned in this thread none of you have taken the time to read anything other books that support evolution and maybe a review or summary of a book that provides some of the counter arguments to the theory. I'd recommend reading Behe's book (biochemist with Ph.D creditials). He doesn't approach the subject in a dogmatic way.

The onus is on evolutions to provide the evidence that this all happened by random chance. There is a given order in the universe (why?). Physics and chemistry are the study of the order in the physical universe. Even with our vast understand of the properties of matter there is a grand mystery regarding how these properties of physics and chemistry come together to produce this vastly complex and intriquing "thing" we call life. The more we learn about life the complex we discover it is and appreciate the forces that work against it having happened by random chance (including the Law of Thermodynamics and increased enthropy), things Darwin didn't have a clue about when he wrote Origin of Species. The more we fold back the onion skin the more complex things seem to get becoming IMHO a stronger argument against it (life) having taken place as a result of random chance.

1. But evolution does not state it happens by random chance.

2. You are confusing abiogenesis with evolution.

3. I think you should check out the following, from a Christian, on entropy and the second law:

http://www.charleswood.ca/reading/evolution.php