Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution

[lasthero]

That is how we get a variety of birds or dogs. This can happen fast by the way.

Please demonstrate that we could get the variety of dogs and birds we see with only 4,400 years of variation. Don't just say it can happen fast, show your work.

Edit: By the way, please tell me you think all birds originally came from one 'kind' 4,400 years ago. That would make my day. Please, please, please, please...

They have not been observed, tested nor repeated.

Yes, they have.

They ignore mathematical probability

Mathematical probability doesn't have a thing to do with this.

the fact that those processes are not intelligent and can't select for future plans or build anything complex.

'Future plans'? Evolution has no 'future plans'. It's not working to any specific goal. How can you argue against something you clearly know next to nothing about?

 

[Valiantis]

The very basics is that natural selection and mutations cause species to have slight variations depending on environmental changes or other factors. That is how we get a variety of birds or dogs. This can happen fast by the way.

Darwinian Evolution looks at that, looks at DNA and structures and sees lots of similarities. They then infer that we all have a common ancestor and that a man can come from a primate animal or fish became a mammal walking on land. Those ideas have no basis in fact. They have not been observed, tested nor repeated.

They ignore mathematical probability and the fact that those processes are not intelligent and can't select for future plans or build anything complex. Evolution is a process working in reverse of natural laws. Don't fall for it, Valiantis!

As I said, you do not know the first thing about evolution, time is the key, but because of your beliefs the very last thing you will allow evolution is time, that is why you are so so wrong and it is why you will remain so so wrong for as long as you remain a creationist.
You believe what you have been told even though what you have been told is wrong, even worse you are not even allowed to check whether what you are being told is true or not because you have been told that even to check is a sin.

 

[EternalDragon]

Please demonstrate that we could get the variety of dogs and birds we see with only 4,400 years of variation. Don't just say it can happen fast, show your work.

Edit: By the way, please tell me you think all birds originally came from one 'kind' 4,400 years ago. That would make my day. Please, please, please, please...

No, I do not.

 

[lasthero]

Aw.

Well, how many bird 'kinds' were there originally?

 

[EternalDragon]

As I said, you do not know the first thing about evolution, time is the key, but because of your beliefs the very last thing you will allow evolution is time, that is why you are so so wrong and it is why you will remain so so wrong for as long as you remain a creationist.
You believe what you have been told even though what you have been told is wrong, even worse you are not even allowed to check whether what you are being told is true or not because you have been told that even to check is a sin.

I've not been told anything. Or that checking is a sin. I don't really fully understand what you are saying. You are also characterizing me without even knowing me or my background. (By the way, I do not consider myself a creationist as that is kind of a broad term as there are different types.)

I check both sides of the issue constantly through secular research and Christian research. Sites like evolutionnews.org. Or Scientific American and Discover magazines. Books by accredited scientists like Behe, Sewell, Stephen C. Meyer, etc.

I believe God's word about the world first and foremost. Man's conclusions about the world around us, not so much.

 

[lasthero]

evolutionnews.org

An ID hack site.

Or Scientific American and Discover magazines.

Better, but did it ever occur to you to read some scientific journals with actual peer reviewed work? Maybe an actual biology textbook? I'm also curious which articles out of the Scientific American and Discover you read to get your understanding of evolution.

Behe, Sewell, Stephen C. Meyer, etc.

All ID proponents. This is what you call 'checking both sides'?

 

[EternalDragon]

An ID hack site.

Yes, of course. Anything against evolution, no matter how scientifically sound, is attacked and pushed under the rug. It is very typical or the evolution faith.

Better, but did it ever occur to you to read some scientific journals with actual peer reviewed work? Maybe an actual biology textbook? I'm also curious which articles out of the Scientific American and Discover you read to get your understanding of evolution.

I have my son's Biology book right here but it won't help you any. It contains actual science.

All ID proponents. This is what you call 'checking both sides'?

I gave up on reading evolution proponents books a while ago as they seem to not use real science and instead go by faith or inferred ideas that are not science.

 

[Split Rock]

I just wanted to ask if you ever entertained the idea that if an intelligent creator created a male and female human, that they made them with variation already present? In other words, the ID'er made them capable of being able to start a population off with only two people?

How would the creator do this with a Diploid organism? There is only a maximum of 4 (four) alleles possible for each gene locus if you start with only two individuals. Period. That is Basic Math. 2 x 2 = 4. You guys talk about misapplied probabilities, but don't bother to use basic math with your arguments.

 

[lasthero]

Yes, of course. Anything against evolution, no matter how scientifically sound, is attacked and pushed under the rug. It is very typical or the evolution faith.

It just goes to show how much time you spend 'Checking Both sides'. None at all.

I have my son's Biology book right here but it won't help you any. It contains actual science.

Said the guy who thought an atomic explosion was the same thing as watching an atom split.

I gave up on reading evolution proponents books a while ago as they seem to not use real science and instead go by faith or inferred ideas that are not science.

Uh-huh. Which books did you read, pray tell?

 

[Valiantis]

Books by accredited scientists like Behe, Sewell, Stephen C. Meyer, etc.

They may well be accredited scientists in their own fields but they are not ID scientists because there is no such thing as ID science, it's all made up, they write about what they want to be true not what is true.

 

[AV1611VET]

1. Lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information.

2. The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution.

3. The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for a grand "tree of life."

4. Natural selection is an extremely inefficient method of spreading traits in populations unless a trait has an extremely high selection coefficient;

5. The problem that convergent evolution appears rampant -- at both the genetic and morphological levels, even though under Darwinian theory this is highly unlikely.

6. The failure of chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code.

7. The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development.

8. The failure of neo-Darwinian evolution to explain the biogeographical distribution of many species.

9. A long history of inaccurate predictions inspired by neo-Darwinism regarding vestigial organs or so-called "junk" DNA.

10. Humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage (e.g. music, art, religion, ability to ponder the nature of the universe).

Here's one of my "oldies but goodies":

4 Reasons Against Evolution

1. NOT ENOUGH TIME

• Using the Bible to calculate time, one concludes that the earth has gone around the sun roughly 6100 times. This is much too short a timespan for evolution to have occurred.

2. THERE IS NO ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT

• Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

3. NO ANIMALS DIED PRIOR TO THE FALL

• Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

4. JESUS BELIEVED IN CREATION - NOT EVOLUTION

• Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Here's one of my "oldies but goodies":

Given evolution is something we observe happening today I'd say 1-4 are moot.

 

[Valiantis]

Here's one of my "oldies but goodies":
4 Reasons Against Evolution




1. NOT ENOUGH TIME

• Using the Bible to calculate time, one concludes that the earth has gone around the sun roughly 6100 times. This is much too short a timespan for evolution to have occurred.

2. THERE IS NO ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT

• Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

3. NO ANIMALS DIED PRIOR TO THE FALL

• Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

4. JESUS BELIEVED IN CREATION - NOT EVOLUTION

• Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

All of them made up, none of them backed up by anything more than wishful thinking.
Are creationists going to talk their way into heaven?

 

[AV1611VET]

Given evolution is something we observe happening today I'd say 1-4 are moot.

I wouldn't.

What you observe today is called "adaptation."

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

I wouldn't.

What you observe today is called "adaptation."

Well you can take it upon yourself to rename a well demonstrated theory if you like but it doesn't change the fact that what is observed is evolution according to the scientific definition

 

[AV1611VET]

All of them made up, none of them backed up by anything more than wishful thinking.

Scripture is "wishful thinking"?

Are creationists going to talk their way into heaven?

Given that most scientists talk themselves out of Heaven ...

 

[AV1611VET]

Well you can take it upon yourself to rename a well demonstrated theory if you like but it doesn't change the fact that what is observed is evolution according to the scientific definition

Since I originally made that post, I found out that theistic evolution is indeed a form of creationism.

So one could argue that Point #4 is simply Jesus believing in evolutionary creationism.

But I'll still disagree.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Since I originally made that post, I found out that theistic evolution is indeed a form of creationism.

So one could argue that Point #4 is simply Jesus believing in evolutionary creationism.

But I'll still disagree.

I don't see how 1-4 really affect any science at all given they're based on religious beliefs rather than observable reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Scripture is "wishful thinking"?

Now you are getting a clue.

 

[Valiantis]

Scripture is "wishful thinking"?

Yes wishful thinking, scriptures are all about getting to Heaven because that is where we wish to go one day.

Given that most scientists talk themselves out of Heaven ...

As quite a few scientists are Christians how do they talk themselves out of Heaven? what has Heaven got to do with science anyway? science deals with reality not faith and you only condemn science because of your dogma.
Creationists rely on science in their every day lives but conveniently dismiss it when it comes to their religion,
that is just plain dishonesty.