Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution

[Skaloop]

Not only that, but where did all the fish came from? Roughly half the fish alive in this planet today live either in salt or fresh water. Very few can live on both. So, about 15,000 fish in each habitat (salt versus fresh). According to the Bible, no fish was put in the ark (only things that creepeth upon the earth).

A global flood with rain water (which is what is described in the Bible) would cause the salinity in all oceans to drop by half, and the salinity in all rivers/lakers to increase a lot. In other words, a global flood would kill 99.9% of the fish in this planet. Yet, today, we have 30,000 species of fish happily living in their respective habitats (fresh or salt).

The level of ignorance in this subject is so big that most of the time when I ask about it, the usual YEC will just say: but fish don't die in a flood. Yeah, try a global flood for an entire year and see how many would survive.

I've explained the salt v. fresh water situation already at the link below. AV even commended me on it.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7447593-3/#post54296501

 

[Justatruthseeker]

1. Lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information. Related to this are problems with the Darwinian mechanism producing irreducibly complex features, and the problems of non-functional or deleterious intermediate stages. (For details see: "The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information," "Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones's Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum," "Opening Darwin's Black Box," or "Can Random Mutations Create New Complex Features? A Response to TalkOrigins");

2. The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution. (For details, see "Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record" or "Intelligent Design Has Scientific Merit in Paleontology");

3. The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for a grand "tree of life." (For details, see: "A Primer on the 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. (For details, see "Convergent Genetic Evolution: 'Surprising' Under Unguided Evolution, Expected Under Intelligent Design" and "Dolphins and Porpoises and...Bats? Oh My! Evolution's Convergence Problem");

6. The failure of chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code. (For details, see "The origin of life remains a mystery" or "Problems with the Natural Chemical 'Origin of Life'");

7. The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development. (For details, see: "Evolving views of embryology," "A Reply to Carl Zimmer on Embryology and Developmental Biology," "Current Textbooks Misuse Embryology to Argue for Evolution");

8. The failure of neo-Darwinian evolution to explain the biogeographical distribution of many species. (For details, see "Sea Monkey Hypotheses Refute the NCSE's Biogeography Objections to Explore Evolution" or "Sea Monkeys Are the Tip of the Iceberg: More Biogeographical Conundrums for Neo-Darwinism");

9. A long history of inaccurate predictions inspired by neo-Darwinism regarding vestigial organs or so-called "junk" DNA. (For details, ] see: "Intelligent Design and the Death of the 'Junk-DNA' Neo-Darwinian Paradigm," "The Latest Proof of Evolution: The Appendix Has No Important Function," or "Does Darrel Falk's Junk DNA Argument for Common Descent Commit 'One of the Biggest Mistakes in the History of Molecular Biology'?);

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).
- See more at: What Are the Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution? - Evolution News & Views

11. DNA/RNA/Protien problem. As any who understand the basics of biology knows, one can not have DNA without RNA+Protiens. But one can not have RNA without DNA+Protiens. But one can not have Protien without DNA+RNA. All three must co-exist simultaneously for any of the three to be viable. Each by itself is completely useless.

12. Humans clearly did not evolve from any wondering or tree dwelling species. All species that are aboreal or forest dwelling have offspring capable of immediately grasping to free the parent to move through the trees, or capable of flight within a few minutes to avoid predators. Clearly the offspring of man is not capable of either nor intended to, for there was never any need. All creatures were placed under him, all animals in subjugation. Flight was never needed as man is no animals prey unless in exceptional circumstances, such as a lion getting hurt and not being able to hunt its normal prey.

 

[Naraoia]

Not only that, but where did all the fish came from? Roughly half the fish alive in this planet today live either in salt or fresh water. Very few can live on both. So, about 15,000 fish in each habitat (salt versus fresh). According to the Bible, no fish was put in the ark (only things that creepeth upon the earth).

So mudskippers, eels and walking catfish might have got lucky. The rest of them are definitely goners!

Yeah, just the ones that grow around moisture, like mosses and such.....

In fact, mosses do not have seeds.

 

[Naraoia]

11. DNA/RNA/Protien problem. As any who understand the basics of biology knows, one can not have DNA without RNA+Protiens. But one can not have RNA without DNA+Protiens. But one can not have Protien without DNA+RNA. All three must co-exist simultaneously for any of the three to be viable. Each by itself is completely useless.

Except RNA makes very good enzymes. Including enzymes capable of copying RNA. The ones we currently have aren't good enough to copy themselves yet, but considering we got from a crappy prototype that could copy like a dozen nucleotides to one that can get up to almost 100 in just a decade, I think there's good reason to expect that a genuine self-copying RNA genome is possible.

(Especially if you keep it in small segments, like flu viruses. Then each individual segment is small enough for even a weak RNA polymerase to replicate, but together they can do a lot of different things.)

(As of the linked paper, the best RNA-copying ribozyme is about twice as long as the longest sequence it can copy in one go. If anyone knows of an even better version, I'd be delighted to hear about it!)

12. Humans clearly did not evolve from any wondering or tree dwelling species. All species that are aboreal or forest dwelling have offspring capable of immediately grasping to free the parent to move through the trees, or capable of flight within a few minutes to avoid predators. Clearly the offspring of man is not capable of either nor intended to, for there was never any need.

You should have fact-checked this. As it stands, the level of cluelessness in the above is just painful to watch.

One: there are tons of arboreal and/or forest-dwelling creatures with utterly helpless young. Songbirds, for starters. Two: human babies do have a grasp reflex, although today it's pretty useless since adult humans don't have enough hair to grasp onto. Three: human ancestors have been mainly ground-dwelling for a couple of millions of years. That is more than enough time for both the helpless infants and the hairless adults to evolve.

 

[EternalDragon]

And that would be the land that had supposedly just been saturated for months in a SALT solution.......??

So show me how diluted water is very salty.

You guys need to go and watch those survival shows where the guy lives off bugs, scorpions and moss lichen in places where not much grows.

 

[lasthero]

Dude, we're not talking about a place where not much grows, we're talking about a place where NOTHING grows.

The bugs are dead.

The scorpions are dead.

The moss is dead.

None of these things could survive being underwater for the better part of a year. It would be a mass extinction for anything that lived on land - including plants.

 

[dlamberth]

None of these things could survive being underwater for the better part of a year. It would be a mass extinction for anything that lived on land - including plants.

If one were to take the Biblical Flood myth literally, I think that was the desired result.

.

 

[EternalDragon]

Dude, we're not talking about a place where not much grows, we're talking about a place where NOTHING grows.

The bugs are dead.

The scorpions are dead.

The moss is dead.

None of these things could survive being underwater for the better part of a year. It would be a mass extinction for anything that lived on land - including plants.

You've got to put your evolution thinking cap on. Give the earth, humans, plants and creatures a little more credit.

I mean, after all, there was a barren planet that all life sprang out of. There was a time when there were no plants, then no animals, and now look at us. That is the way the story goes, isn't it?

 

[CabVet]

I've explained the salt v. fresh water situation already at the link below. AV even commended me on it.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7447593-3/#post54296501

Yeah, I don't buy that explanation, not for one second. One year is more than enough time for "waters" to mix. Not to mention, a sea level thousands of meters higher would kill every species just by eliminating their habitat (most live close to shore, but with the whole planet flooded there is not much "shore").

 

[CabVet]

You've got to put your evolution thinking cap on. Give the earth, humans, plants and creatures a little more credit.

The evolution cap is on, and it says that there is no possible way for all of the diversity that we see today to have evolved in 4,000 years.

I mean, after all, there was a barren planet that all life sprang out of. There was a time when there were no plants, then no animals, and now look at us. That is the way the story goes, isn't it?

And that was a long, long, long time ago.

 

[lasthero]

You've got to put your evolution thinking cap on. Give the earth, humans, plants and creatures a little more credit.

I mean, after all, there was a barren planet that all life sprang out of. There was a time when there were no plants, then no animals, and now look at us. That is the way the story goes, isn't it?

No.

Whatever conditions were present at the Earth's formation were not the same as what would happen if the planet was scoured by a global flood. And even if they were, that life took millions of years to develop. Which they don't have.

Maybe you can answer something that's been bugging me while we're on the subject - I'm guessing you accept that dogs originally came from wolves, right? How many species of wolf were on the Ark?

 

[gluadys]

You've got to put your evolution thinking cap on. Give the earth, humans, plants and creatures a little more credit.

I mean, after all, there was a barren planet that all life sprang out of. There was a time when there were no plants, then no animals, and now look at us. That is the way the story goes, isn't it?

Yes, but it took four billion years. In fact it took 2 billion years to get anything other than bacteria, almost another billion years to get multicellular life in the oceans, and another half-billion years to get terrestrial plants followed by terrestrial animal life. And grass didn't get going for still another 2-3 hundred million years. I don't think the grazing animals who left the ark could wait that long for their next meal.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

You've got to put your evolution thinking cap on. Give the earth, humans, plants and creatures a little more credit.

I mean, after all, there was a barren planet that all life sprang out of. There was a time when there were no plants, then no animals, and now look at us. That is the way the story goes, isn't it?

So after the flood there was nothing left except a few methanogens and Cyanobacteria but given a couple of billion years things might bounce back?

 

[biggles53]

So show me how diluted water is very salty.

You guys need to go and watch those survival shows where the guy lives off bugs, scorpions and moss lichen in places where not much grows.

Most terrestrial plants will not tolerate even a minor change in the salinity of their soil, let alone being submerged in ANY form of water for most of a year....!

Face it.....your childish myth is shot...

 

[EternalDragon]

Yes, but it took four billion years. In fact it took 2 billion years to get anything other than bacteria, almost another billion years to get multicellular life in the oceans, and another half-billion years to get terrestrial plants followed by terrestrial animal life. And grass didn't get going for still another 2-3 hundred million years. I don't think the grazing animals who left the ark could wait that long for their next meal.

I was using it as an example. At the time of Noah things already had taken hold and a sample of everything was all saved on the Ark.

Plus seeds inside dead animals who ate them, mats of floating vegetation, diluted salt water, etc. The earth was only covered for 7 months, then receded for 7 months till Noah opened the doors.

 

[Aman777]

Most terrestrial plants will not tolerate even a minor change in the salinity of their soil, let alone being submerged in ANY form of water for most of a year....!

Face it.....your childish myth is shot...

Dear biggles, Not so, since our world has Never suffered a Global Flood. It was Adam's world which was totally destroyed in the Flood. Your idea that it was this world which was destroyed in the Flood is ridiculous. The only Myth here is your flawed understanding.

In Love,
Aman

 

[biggles53]

Dear biggles, Not so, since our world has Never suffered a Global Flood. It was Adam's world which was totally destroyed in the Flood. Your idea that it was this world which was destroyed in the Flood is ridiculous. The only Myth here is your flawed understanding.

In Love,
Aman

Oh my.........Duelling Myths....!

 

[CabVet]

Dear biggles, Not so, since our world has Never suffered a Global Flood. It was Adam's world which was totally destroyed in the Flood. Your idea that it was this world which was destroyed in the Flood is ridiculous. The only Myth here is your flawed understanding.

You forgot to say that this is "God's truth".

 

[lasthero]

Plus seeds inside dead animals who ate them, mats of floating vegetation, diluted salt water, etc. The earth was only covered for 7 months, then receded for 7 months till Noah opened the doors.

...wait.

In a global flood, where would the waters recede to, exactly?

 

[Aman777]

Oh my.........Duelling Myths....!

Dear Biggles, I wouldn't know since my view is "according to the Scriptures." It is NOT a Myth. The only Myth around here is the False Theory of Evolution.

Read Gen. 1:6-8 and see that the first "heaven" was made the 2nd Day.
Read Gen. 2:4 and see that other "heavenS" were made on the 3rd Day.

That's Three. Right? The first heaven was destroyed in the Flood.
The present heaven or Cosmos will be burned.

Aren't you glad God made THREE?

In Love,
Aman