Some Reasons I Don't Believe in Evolution

[Nostromo]

To deny Its Author is to burn in Hell.

We'll see you there then!

 

[No Time]

The Bible is the greatest of all books;
to study it is the noblest of all pursuits;
to understand it, the highest of all goals;
to believe that it's all true is just plain silly.

To deny Its Author is to burn in Hell.

Sez who? Oh yes it was the author.

 

[SpiceDMind21]

I know! Just ask Jupiter.

What a silly thing to say! I think you are implying that Jupiter has had the same amount of time, but no life (that we know of) has evolved yet.

I say it is silly because you are intentionally leading the discussion astray. Sure, I could say that Jupiter has some very extreme temperatures, that the conditions would be hard for the delicate wiggly bits of proteins and acids that form life (as we know it!) to come together and survive long enough to propagate. But that would take away from the really exciting discussion we are already having.

No.

Do you realize that understanding how DNA works could give you greater insight both to how copy errors are made and how such errors could lead to change in the organism itself?

Assuming the above, would you be interested in learning? I would also be learning more about it myself, as it has been a long, long time since my last biology class, but I am sure there are resources that explain it without getting too technical.

I can tell by your use of words, like "information", that you are thinking of this in very abstract terms. This is perfectly fine, as we can't all be masters in every subject! However, it does get tricky when you argue against the concept in abstract terms. You are arguing against a chemical reaction on emotional terms! The molecules in our bodies don't much care if they are "adding information", they are just following along with the rules of chemistry.

 

[Phred]

1. The Bible does not teach evolution; but in fact, teaches its antithesis: creationism.

The Bible doesn't actually "teach" anything. The Bible tells stories and leaves it up to the individual to interpret those stories. I'm sorry that you insist upon this because you don't insist upon putting unruly teenagers to death as the Bible also "teaches". You see, you interpret the Bible as you see fit. What you don't see fit to do is interpret Genesis reasonably in light of the evidence. So... to sum up, you are not really pro-Bible, you are anti-science. I have no idea why.

2. Variation (microevolution) can only go so far, then it stops. If you push a species to the limit by selective breeding, it becomes sterile and dies out.

This is your opinion. It is unsupported by evidence.

Bacteria produce a new variation every twenty minutes to twenty-four hours and are found in every environment on earth, yet despite being at the limits of variation, no bacterium changes into something else.

No set of parents ever had a child they didn't recognize. The bacteria that are something else are now SOMETHING ELSE. Which you recognize as SOMETHING ELSE and are telling me can't ever change from SOMETHING ELSE except a long time ago they were bacteria.

Fruit flies grow from egg to adult in nine days, and are one of scientists favorite insects to study; yet studies of fruit flies all over the world show no change into something higher.

"higher"? What is "higher"? You show your ignorance. Flies, bacterium... these populations show speciation. That's all we need to know that they will change. They will diverge from the original population because they can no longer breed with the original population. If the pressure of the environment is such that traits are favored that show change the organisms will become more and more divergent until one day you will not recognize them as the same type of organism. It's quite obviously happened as we see fossils of all sorts of creatures that were here and are not here today. Where did they all go?

Variation involves a loss of information, not a gain.

This is simply a lie. It is not true. I personally know you've had it explained to you over and over again and yet you persist in trying to spread this. As such you are now not ignorant nor misinformed. You are lying.

This means that even though a species may adapt to a new environment, it does so by losing a big part of its genetic information. If the new environment is a temporary one, such as a minor ice age, the adapted species will die out as soon as the environment changes back; it will not evolve back to where it came from.

This is ignorant rambling... nonsense.

The fossil record is a joke. All it is is bones in the ground, and not one set of fossils would stand up in a court of law as preponderance of evolution. In addition, one cannot show that the creature in question even had any offspring.

In court the fossil record demolished creationists. Kitzmiller v. Dover. You've been trounced already. Please don't try to say you haven't.

Commence confutation please.

There is no confusion. Creationists simply resort to lying when they can't find anything to support their views. Yours are plain. You believe your interpretation of the Bible to be correct regardless of evidence, regardless of being proven wrong in a court of law, regardless of fact. You sir, are simply going to believe what you believe regardless of anything that comes along so why bother to lie about it too? More of an effort to pretend your position is more than just stubborn ignorance clothed in faith hiding behind arrogance? You're gonna force your position into schools whether anyone else likes it or not?

No... you're not.

 

[Davian]

The Bible is the greatest of all books;
to study it is the noblest of all pursuits;
to understand it, the highest of all goals;
to believe that it's all true is just plain silly.

To deny Its Author is to burn in Hell.

As you have yet to establish the existence of the "author" or "Hell", and as you recently defined "God" out of existence here, what you are saying does sound silly. Perhaps you should stick to figuring out this evolution stuff.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Here's an excerpt from one of the sites I'm reading:
SOURCE

100-200 de novo mutations are estimated to be in every person. As in, when your parents were making the two sex cells that would eventually fuse to form you, there are a cumulative 100-200 differences between the material you got from mom and that which you got from dad. Most of these make no lick of difference, because a lot of the genome is buffer space.

But sometimes they do make a lick of difference, if they're in the right place. Genes code for proteins, and the sequence of a protein determines the protein's shape. The shape of the protein determines how it interacts with other proteins. Thus, a change in DNA sequence --> change in protein sequence --> change in protein structure --> change in protein function is possible.

You cannot deny that mutations can confer a positive advantage to an organism in a given population. That is a fact. To deny it is to be willfully ignorant. Everything we know about genetics demonstrates how:
a) The genome is capable of changing
b) These changes can establish themselves in the population, or eliminate themselves

Here's some facts: those of African ancestry are more likely to carry sickle cell, thalassemia, and other hemoglobin mutations. These changes came about because those who had them lived longer because they were more resistant to malaria. This is a positive change. The flipside is that if you get two mutations, you end up with a full-blown disease...like sickle cell anemia or thalassemia major.

It's nearly impossible to fully explain this to you without you having a solid foundation in modern biology. I wish I could explain it better to you, because evolution is simply awe-inspiring. My very rudimentary understanding of it enlightens my life, much like I imagine physics students feel about relativity and quantum theory. The only reason you don't share this feeling that I have is because you stay willfully ignorant of biology.

 

[razeontherock]

Deal. I'm not a scientist myself so I'll try and keep it simple.

I want to address point 3, the idea that variation contains no information.

Mutations come in many forms. Some multiply elements, some remove elements and some simply change the shape.

For Example
If I take the word STOP and copy the letters incorrectly it can become different things.

Deletion (removal of code) STOP - > TOP

Insertion (addition of code) STOP - > STOOP

Transposition (alteration of code) STOP - > TOPS

DNA isn't letters exactly, it's chemicals but this is an example of how mutations can occur. Don't worry about biological effects for now, just consider how the code can change. Do you get the idea of these three types of mutation?

Fast forward a few steps. Most (all?) known cases of mutations resulting in new genetic info, are a result of one critter usurping code from another. This means you have to START with a working ecosystem.

If Ev theory can't show how genetic material increases due to mutation w/o that - Lucy, you still got lots of 'splainin ta do; i.e., it's not reasonable to expect abiogenesis to poof a working ecosystem into existence right off the bat. You've got no cohesive theory for life, the Universe and everything; ya can't count to 42

 

[razeontherock]

[/LIST]
E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My personal favourite part:

"In 2008, Lenski and his collaborators reported on a particularly important adaptation that occurred in one of the twelve populations: the bacteria evolved the ability to utilize citrate as a source of energy. Wild type E. coli cannot transport citrate across the cell membrane to the cell interior (where it could be incorporated into the citric acid cycle) when oxygen is present. The consequent lack of growth on citrate under oxic conditions is considered a defining characteristic of the species that has been a valuable means of differentiating E. coli from pathogenic Salmonella"

So, arguably, it's a new species.

Sure, but bacteria is still bacteria, and finches are still finches

 

[razeontherock]

However, since different species have different lengths of DNA, it makes sense that, over the course of evolution, the length of genetic code has increased.

Except that's not true. Unless you consider yourself to be an ancient ancestor of a fern?

 

[No Time]

Except that's not true.

Just saying 'that's not true' or 'you're wrong' is not enough, try telling people why 'it's not true' or why 'they're wrong'.

 

[Astridhere]

The Bible doesn't actually "teach" anything. The Bible tells stories and leaves it up to the individual to interpret those stories. I'm sorry that you insist upon this because you don't insist upon putting unruly teenagers to death as the Bible also "teaches". You see, you interpret the Bible as you see fit. What you don't see fit to do is interpret Genesis reasonably in light of the evidence. So... to sum up, you are not really pro-Bible, you are anti-science. I have no idea why.
The instability of evolution, constant changed thinking, recants and falsifications of other researchers works may demonstrate the hypocritical lengths some people are prepared to go to make an invalid point.

100 years of changed thinking and falsifications is not evidence..champ!

The bible contains so many scientific accuracies that it would be stupid to suggest any were erraneous. This is NOT the case with your researchers that have much irrefuteable evidence residing int he garbage bin of delusions past..
http://www.thomasharry.com/101-scientifc-facts--foreknowledge.html

This is your opinion. It is unsupported by evidence.
It most certainly is supported by the evidence. Evolutionists have never observed macroevolution and the excuse is ...time. It is assumed that small adaptive changes will turn a mouse deer into a whale, or a chimp into a human...oh wait that's right it was something like a chimp..Oh wait, another change indeed now it was nothing like a chimp at all. Great science!

No set of parents ever had a child they didn't recognize. The bacteria that are something else are now SOMETHING ELSE. Which you recognize as SOMETHING ELSE and are telling me can't ever change from SOMETHING ELSE except a long time ago they were bacteria.
Too bad parents don't recognize that their little bunlde of joy is really 8% viral remnants...how cute, although ridiculous!

"higher"? What is "higher"? You show your ignorance. Flies, bacterium... these populations show speciation. That's all we need to know that they will change. They will diverge from the original population because they can no longer breed with the original population.
I think this is nonsense. Neanderthal and other homo sapiens should be the same species if they can successfully interbreed. Your species definition is a sham.
If the pressure of the environment is such that traits are favored that show change the organisms will become more and more divergent until one day you will not recognize them as the same type of organism. It's quite obviously happened as we see fossils of all sorts of creatures that were here and are not here today. Where did they all go?
Nothing is obvious in the fossil record other than misleading, misrepresentations and ridiculous scenarios made up to maintain the status quo. Punctuated evolution was based on the fossil gaps where a new form suddenly appears that evos bend over backwards trying to show connections for. BTW, Creationists have no problem with extinction of some species.

This is simply a lie. It is not true. I personally know you've had it explained to you over and over again and yet you persist in trying to spread this. As such you are now not ignorant nor misinformed. You are lying.
No it is not a lie. New information cannot arise through Mendellian inheritance from parents, it can only be deleted or screwed up. Genes duplicate, fuse etc, genes are turned on and off but new information does not arise. However it does arise with HGT that has been shown to endogenize and epigenetic inheritance causing major somatic and reversible changes eg cecal valve in lizards.

This is ignorant rambling... nonsense.
AV is not rambling at all. In fact survival of the fittest is a useless term. It is really the survival of the luckiest when it comes to catastrophe. What is a 'fittness' trait for survival in one landscape disaster can be the killer in another.

In court the fossil record demolished creationists. Kitzmiller v. Dover. You've been trounced already. Please don't try to say you haven't.
So that's why Gould invented punctuated equilibrium! Is it? The fossil record comprises of examples such as Turkana Boy found over 4 years that has a femour totally unlike that of a human, chimp or gorilla and an ape head and is still upheld as a human ancestor. You call a variety of mouse deer, Indohyus, an early whale. What you have is a host of misrepresentations to sprook to as evidence.

There is no confusion. Creationists simply resort to lying when they can't find anything to support their views. Yours are plain. You believe your interpretation of the Bible to be correct regardless of evidence, regardless of being proven wrong in a court of law, regardless of fact. You sir, are simply going to believe what you believe regardless of anything that comes along so why bother to lie about it too? More of an effort to pretend your position is more than just stubborn ignorance clothed in faith hiding behind arrogance? You're gonna force your position into schools whether anyone else likes it or not?
You also will believe what you want to believe despite evidence to the contrary.

Earth is at the centre of the universe..suck it up!
Mathematicians’ theory means Earth may be the center of the universe « Thoughts En Route

This is easier to understand and confirm than the convolutions of big bang theory that falls apart at the singularity and used dark matter that you know absolutly nothing about.

It is also easier to understand that something that looks just like a mouse deer is more likely to be a variety of mouse deer than a whale...Go figure!

The community also need to know things like modern bird footprints, 212myo, predate the so called ancestors and the ridiculous scenarios put forward as usual to save the day like they belong to dinosaurs with bird like feet. Very funny, but misrepresentative of the fossil evidence.
No... you're not.

The community needs to be made aware of the fraudulent misrepresentations used to support evolution so they can make an informed choice rather than a bullied into mind set based on misrepresentations, biased assumptive algorithms, and non plausible scenarios.

The community also need to be made aware that all data can be interpreted in support of creationist paradigms, including ID & YEC etc just as well, if not better, than evolution. They also need to be made aware of the contradictions and debate, rather than the gloss that ignores same.

What the community do not need are bullies telling them what they should think, particularly with the mess evolution is in at the moment.

 

[razeontherock]

Just saying 'that's not true' or 'you're wrong' is not enough, try telling people why 'it's not true' or why 'they're wrong'.

This is pretty basic stuff here. Try context? Compare the genome of a fern to that of a human.

 

[Split Rock]

1. The Bible does not teach evolution; but in fact, teaches its antithesis: creationism.

The bible teaches neither. Creationism is based on an erroneous interpretation of the bible.

2. Variation (microevolution) can only go so far, then it stops. If you push a species to the limit by selective breeding, it becomes sterile and dies out.

Strange then that there are so many extinct species, yet life on earth is not becoming sterile and dying out like you claim.

3. Variation involves a loss of information, not a gain. This means that even though a species may adapt to a new environment, it does so by losing a big part of its genetic information. If the new environment is a temporary one, such as a minor ice age, the adapted species will die out as soon as the environment changes back; it will not evolve back to where it came from.

Define information in this context, then show us how "variation" reduces it.

4. The fossil record is a joke. All it is is bones in the ground, and not one set of fossils would stand up in a court of law as preponderance of evolution.

Of course it would. And it has... ever heard of the Dover trial?

In addition, one cannot show that the creature in question even had any offspring.

Irrelevant. Each individual fossil represents a population that could and did reproduce.

 

[Split Rock]

Sure, but bacteria is still bacteria, and finches are still finches

And humans are still animals, vertebrates, mammals, primates, and apes.

 

[Split Rock]

The community needs to be made aware of the fraudulent misrepresentations used to support evolution so they can make an informed choice rather than a bullied into mind set based on misrepresentations, biased assumptive algorithms, and non plausible scenarios.

The vast majority of so-called "misrepresentations used to support evolution" are lies told by professioanl creationists who want you to buy their dvds.

The community also need to be made aware that all data can be interpreted in support of creationist paradigms, including ID & YEC etc just as well, if not better, than evolution. They also need to be made aware of the contradictions and debate, rather than the gloss that ignores same.

What data would not support creationist paradigms? I don't know how many times I have asked this question here, but recived no viable responses.

What the community do not need are bullies telling them what they should think, particularly with the mess evolution is in at the moment.

How about bullies telling the community that they will "burn in hell" if they don't think the way you want them to?

 

[Astridhere]

Split Rock says
The vast majority of so-called "misrepresentations used to support evolution" are lies told by professioanl creationists who want you to buy their dvds

Then you will have no trouble explaining why Turkana Boys femour looks nothing like a human chimp or gorilla. I dare you to try as no one else can.

So go ahead and defend yourself. I say Turkana Boy is an ape. He has an extra vertebra, unlike mankind but just like many non human apes. He has an ape head that is misrepresentatively tilted forward to mask even more ape like comparisons, he has a thigh bone that looks unlike any primate I can identify.

I say you have to be blind to not see this thing is not human, nor becoming human. I actually believe it is a fraud made of different creatures found over the four years of excavation by a research assistant desperate for glory.

What data would not support creationist paradigms? I don't know how many times I have asked this question here, but recived no viable responses.

You have likely recieved responses that did not suit you is the more likely truth. Junk DNA does not suit a creationist paradigm and you evos used to stick it to creationistist...untill....'junk DNA; was no longer found to be functionless but rather of vital importance.

Finding an actual intermediate between an ape and human would suffice also. To date you can only produce apes, such as Turkana Boy and other erectus/ergaster, put forward as straw grabs of misrepresentative intermediates.

So what game are we playing here ..do you want one or 1 million examples to be satisfied. What would falsify evolution? Nothing.

How about bullies telling the community that they will "burn in hell" if they don't think the way you want them to?

I do not believe anyone will burn in hell. Hades being the grave of no return.

If you do not believe in God or hell then being told you'll burn in hell is not a problem for you. However if one has feelings being told they are ignorant because one does not believe in the rantings and misrepresentations put forward by evolutionists is a different matter. It is also about stereotyping a complete community of creationists on the basis of the few. I am talking about the general community and school education being appropriately informed, not this forum. Your assertion is like my saying that Max Plunckt Institute stuffed up and contaminated their Neanderthal samples therefore ALL researchers are boofheads.

Now you toddle off and explain the Turkana Boy thigh bone mystery so we can all see you do actually know what you are talking about rather than following the crowd in sheep like fashion on at least this one little point.

 

[Astridhere]

And humans are still animals, vertebrates, mammals, primates, and apes.

That's because evolutionists choose what they look for and ignore the rest by using terms such as convergent evolution or homoplasy.

Comming up with a criteria or support that bends in response to data as flavour of the month is not convincing to anyone but a fool. Evolution is a theory in evolution itself.

Eg vestigal organs used to be defined as organs without function. Then low and behold these so called vestigal organs were found to have function eg Appendix. In response the definition was altered to define a similar organ with a different function. What garble!

Evos invented the classification system based on predetermined assumptions of common ancestry then use this as evidence to support same. It is only evidence that researchers have good imaginations. I am fairly sure that God does not give a stuff about your Linnaeus classification system that is being replaced by cladistics as the preferred method anyway. God likely did not create his array of creatures just to make evolutionists look silly, but sometimes I think that maybe He did.

 

[No Time]

The community needs to be made aware of the fraudulent misrepresentations used to support evolution so they can make an informed choice rather than a bullied into mind set based on misrepresentations, biased assumptive algorithms, and non plausible scenarios.

The community also need to be made aware that all data can be interpreted in support of creationist paradigms, including ID & YEC etc just as well, if not better, than evolution. They also need to be made aware of the contradictions and debate, rather than the gloss that ignores same.

What the community do not need are bullies telling them what they should think, particularly with the mess evolution is in at the moment.

How come creationism/ID/YEC is not taught/recognised in the universities of the world? not even the universities in the USA where most of the worlds creationists/ID/YEC's live, what do they know that creationists/ID/YEC's don't know?
Perhaps the rejection of it is a world wide conspiracy?

Evolution by the way is taught in EVERY university in the world including the USA.

 

[Split Rock]

That's because evolutionists choose what they look for and ignore the rest by using terms such as convergent evolution or homoplasy.

Comming up with a criteria or support that bends in response to data as flavour of the month is not convincing to anyone but a fool. Evolution is a theory in evolution itself.

Eg vestigal organs used to be defined as organs without function. Then low and behold these so called vestigal organs were found to have function eg Appendix. In response the definition was altered to define a similar organ with a different function. What garble!

Evos invented the classification system based on predetermined assumptions of common ancestry then use this as evidence to support same. It is only evidence that researchers have good imaginations. I am fairly sure that God does not give a stuff about your Linnaeus classification system that is being replaced by cladistics as the preferred method anyway. God likely did not create his array of creatures just to make evolutionists look silly, but sometimes I think that maybe He did.

The classification system we use today goes back to Linneaus... well before evolution was accepted by the scientific community. This means it is not based on "predetermined assumptions of common ancestry." Rather, it is based on a reality which you and your ilk are afraid of.

Also, the definition of vestigial organs has not changed. Garble you day? Let's look at what Darwin called "rudimentary organs." (emphasis mine)

Rudimentary, atrophied, or aborted organs

Organs or parts in this strange condition, bearing the stamp of inutility, are extremely common throughout nature. For instance, rudimentary mammae are very general in the males of mammals: I presume that the `bastard-wing' in birds may be safely considered as a digit in a rudimentary state: in very many snakes one lobe of the lungs is rudimentary; in other snakes there are rudiments of the pelvis and hind limbs. Some of the cases of rudimentary organs are extremely curious; for instance, the presence of teeth in foetal whales, which when grown up have not a tooth in their heads; and the presence of teeth, which never cut through the gums, in the upper jaws of our unborn calves. It has even been stated on good authority that rudiments of teeth can be detected in the beaks of certain embryonic birds. Nothing can be plainer than that wings are formed for flight, yet in how many insects do we see wings so reduced in size as to be utterly incapable of flight, and not rarely lying under wing-cases, firmly soldered together!

The meaning of rudimentary organs is often quite unmistakeable: for instance there are beetles of the same genus (and even of the same species) resembling each other most closely in all respects, one of which will have full-sized wings, and another mere rudiments of membrane; and here it is impossible to doubt, that the rudiments represent wings. Rudimentary organs sometimes retain their potentiality, and are merely not developed: this seems to be the case with the mammae of male mammals, for many instances are on record of these organs having become well developed in full-grown males, and having secreted milk. So again there are normally four developed and two rudimentary teats in the udders of the genus Bos, but in our domestic cows the two sometimes become developed and give milk. In individual plants of the same species the petals sometimes occur as mere rudiments, and sometimes in a well-developed state. In plants with separated sexes, the male flowers often have a rudiment of a pistil; and Kölreuter found that by crossing such male plants with an hermaphrodite species, the rudiment of the pistil in the hybrid offspring was much increased in size; and this shows that the rudiment and the perfect pistil are essentially alike in nature.

An organ serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other. Thus in plants, the office of the pistil is to allow the pollen-tubes to reach the ovules protected in the ovarium at its base. The pistil consists of a stigma supported on the style; but in some Compositae, the male florets, which of course cannot be fecundated, have a pistil, which is in a rudimentary state, for it is not crowned with a stigma; but the style remains well developed, and is clothed with hairs as in other compositae, for the purpose of brushing the pollen out of the surrounding anthers. Again, an organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct object: in certain fish the swim-bladder seems to be rudimentary for its proper function of giving buoyancy, but has become converted into a nascent breathing organ or lung. Other similar instances could be given.

Rudimentary organs in the individuals of the same species are very liable to vary in degree of development and in other respects. Moreover, in closely allied species, the degree to which the same organ has been rendered rudimentary occasionally differs much. This latter fact is well exemplified in the state of the wings of the female moths in certain groups. Rudimentary organs may be utterly aborted; and this implies, that we find in an animal or plant no trace of an organ, which analogy would lead us to expect to find, and which is occasionally found in monstrous individuals of the species. Thus in the snapdragon (antirrhinum) we generally do not find a rudiment of a fifth stamen; but this may sometimes be seen. In tracing the homologies of the same part in different members of a class, nothing is more common, or more necessary, than the use and discovery of rudiments. This is well shown in the drawings given by Owen of the bones of the leg of the horse, ox, and rhinoceros.

It is an important fact that rudimentary organs, such as teeth in the upper jaws of whales and ruminants, can often be detected in the embryo, but afterwards wholly disappear. It is also, I believe, a universal rule, that a rudimentary part or organ is of greater size relatively to the adjoining parts in the embryo, than in the adult; so that the organ at this early age is less rudimentary, or even cannot be said to be in any degree rudimentary. Hence, also, a rudimentary organ in the adult, is often said to have retained its embryonic condition.

The Origin of Species: Chapter 13

Now lets see if you can do the following, as an example of true Christianity:

1. Admit you were WRONG.
2. Admit your sources LIE to you.
3. Admit you are ignorant about what you rant against.

I am betting you will do none of the above... so much for your "moral/ intellectual superiority."

 

[variant]

Commence confutation please.

You are irrelevant, make very poor arguments, and no one should give two hoots what you think.