Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution

[Loudmouth]

And I also said its nothing but a name game. You got so many mixed up classifications it is not even funny. Your mistake to think bacteria is a kingdom, not a kind.

So "kind" means nothing, it is just a game to you?

[qutoe]The fact you want to ignore is bacteria are NOT human kind, and human kind was NEVER bacteria. that is the point being made.[/quote]

Chihuahuas are not wolves, so are they different kinds?

I don't have a hard time at all, all felines are of a kind, all canines are of a kind, all humans are of a kind, all apes are of a kind, all cattle are of a kind, all fish are of a kind, all sharks are of a kind, all dolphin are of a kind, all whales are of a kind, all grasshopper are of a kind, all mosquitoes are of a kind. Nothing hard or difficult about it.

Why not all mammals in the same kind, or all primates?

No, mammals is merely a classification of kinds that give live birth and breath air through respiration and are warm-blooded.

No, mammal is a kind. See, I just said they are a kind, so that makes them a kind. That is the only criteria that you have put forward thus far. All one has to do is declare that something is a kind and it becomes a kind.

Whale are mammals, dolphin are mammals, cows are mammals, humans are mammals, apes are mammals. Doesn't mean we are related to any of them.

Why not? We are all part of the mammal kind.

Again, it is not my fault evolutionists are not consistent in their classifications.

Another irony meter explodes.

I'm not one that believes egg laying animals belong in the same class as live birth mammals.

There are more differences between species of bacteria than there are between placental mammals and monotremes. More to the point, chimps share more DNA with humans than they do with any of the species within the ape kind. How do you explain that?

 

[Loudmouth]

Because the oldest fossils or newest fossils in every strata is fully formed,

Just as they should be if evolution is true. Evolution does not produce half formed organisms. It only produces fully formed organisms.

There was no transition from RNA to DNA,

Evidence please.

Because it has never been observed, so has no basis in factual evidence at all, merely someone's belief of what occurred, the same thing you disparage about religion is it not? What, not going to hold your evolution to the same factual basis you hold religion to?

We disparage religious claims because they have no evidence. Evolution does have evidence. That's the difference.

There is no proof any simple form of life evolved into more complex.

However, there is evidence which you continually ignore.

As a matter of fact every scientific observation of existing life shows it merely replicates itself, with basic changes in the order of code, leading to appearance changes and nothing more. Kind after kind, from the simplest to the complex, what has always been observed and what will always be observed.

Changes within kinds is all evolution needs to produce the biodiversity we see today.

Like I said, when you get life from dirt, let me know.

Isn't that what you believe in?

 

[EternalDragon]

There is absolutely NO information of any kind in DNA.

Now you are playing word games.

There is machinery, but by itself this means nothing. And the machinery is so Rube Goldberg that nobody would claim design.



No, No, No, No, NO! Not the same thing. Not at ALL the same thing. We find it to be so different as to be unreconcilable. For one, there are no nested hierarchies in human design, because a designer does not have to follow any pattern. The nested hierarchy is the utterly fatal stake in the heart of creationism and ID.

I've heard the nested hierarchy is not a solid theory and is based on shaky evidence.

 

[Skaloop]

I've heard the nested hierarchy is not a solid theory and is based on shaky evidence.

I'm sure you have. It wouldn't be the first time you've heard wrong about topics related to evolution; it's pretty much par for the course.

But, if you have heard such things, what exactly have you heard? How is it shaky?

 

[Loudmouth]

Now you are playing word games.

The whole ID "information" argument is nothing more than word games. They never measure the information content of real DNA sequences.

I've heard the nested hierarchy is not a solid theory and is based on shaky evidence.

Then you have heard wrong.

 

[EternalDragon]

I'm sure you have. It wouldn't be the first time you've heard wrong about topics related to evolution; it's pretty much par for the course.

But, if you have heard such things, what exactly have you heard? How is it shaky?

I am going to have to agree here that there is some evidence of common descent among species. But that, in itself, is not evidence for evolution nor for how life got here and achieved complexity in the first place.

Common design from an ID can also cause similar patterns in unrelated systems.

"The phylogenetic trees for the gene families are not consistently nested, as would be expected in the case of allo-tetraploidy or two widely spaced auto-tetraploidy events. Finally, tree topologies of genes within paralogy blocks are not always congruent, indicating that the process of gene loss and rediploidization spanned the duplication events."

(Paramvir Dehal, Jeffrey L. Boore, "Two Rounds of Whole Genome Duplication in the Ancestral Vertebrate," PLoS Biology, Vol. 3(10):1700-1708 (October 2005).)

 

[Loudmouth]

The phylogenetic trees for the gene families are not consistently nested, as would be expected in the case of allo-tetraploidy or two widely spaced auto-tetraploidy events. Finally, tree topologies of genes within paralogy blocks are not always congruent, indicating that the process of gene loss and rediploidization spanned the duplication events.

(Paramvir Dehal, Jeffrey L. Boore, "Two Rounds of Whole Genome Duplication in the Ancestral Vertebrate," PLoS Biology, Vol. 3(10):1700-1708 (October 2005).)

Now you are just throwing mud at the wall hoping it will stick. Are you seriously telling us that you understand what that is saying?

 

[Loudmouth]

Common design from an ID can also cause similar patterns in unrelated systems.

Then why don't human designs fall into a nested hierarchy? Why do humans continually violate a nested hierarchy when they design organisms?

Why would a designer force designs to fall into a nested hierarchy?

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

ID predicts what we would find in an intelligently designed creature and then that is what they find.

My tiger repelling iPhone predicts that I should not be eaten by a tiger and that's just what we observe.

Code, information, machinery....the exact same things we find in human inventions. Computers, cars, etc.

Biology doesn't run on metaphors. There is nothing like human design in cells.

[It's a completely natural process. Evolution with unguided, unintelligent processes building something like that by chance is not natural.[/QUOTE]

Nor is complex things popping into existence.

 

[Split Rock]

I am going to have to agree here that there is some evidence of common descent among species. But that, in itself, is not evidence for evolution nor for how life got here and achieved complexity in the first place.

Common design from an ID can also cause similar patterns in unrelated systems.

What type of patterns would not be the result of I.D.?

"The phylogenetic trees for the gene families are not consistently nested, as would be expected in the case of allo-tetraploidy or two widely spaced auto-tetraploidy events. Finally, tree topologies of genes within paralogy blocks are not always congruent, indicating that the process of gene loss and rediploidization spanned the duplication events."

(Paramvir Dehal, Jeffrey L. Boore, "Two Rounds of Whole Genome Duplication in the Ancestral Vertebrate," PLoS Biology, Vol. 3(10):1700-1708 (October 2005).)

So what is your problem with the way this data is explained?

 

[Split Rock]

I've heard the nested hierarchy is not a solid theory and is based on shaky evidence.

Tell us what creates nested hierarchies, other than genetic descent.

 

[EternalDragon]

Then why don't human designs fall into a nested hierarchy? Why do humans continually violate a nested hierarchy when they design organisms?

Why would a designer force designs to fall into a nested hierarchy?

There is no nested hierarchy. There I said it.

 

[Skaloop]

There is no nested hierarchy. There I said it.

Saying it's not enough. You have to demonstrate it. One violation of the nested hierarchy is all it would take. A non-mammal with three inner-ear bones, for example.

 

[HitchSlap]

There is no nested hierarchy. There I said it.

You're funny!


Keep 'em comin'.

 

[CabVet]

There is no nested hierarchy. There I said it.

And you just said something that is not true. You can say that you don't "believe" in evolution all you want. You can say that the world was created 6,000 years ago as many times as you want. That would all be compatible with your faith. But saying that "there is no nested hierarchy" is simply not true. What was that commandment again?

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

There is no nested hierarchy. There I said it.

I guess that makes sense in biblical terms. Bats and birds can be the same kind. Whales and fish the same kind. In fact without the nested hierarchy "animals with yellow ears" could be a kind.

 

[EternalDragon]

And you just said something that is not true. You can say that you don't "believe" in evolution all you want. You can say that the world was created 6,000 years ago as many times as you want. That would all be compatible with your faith. But saying that "there is no nested hierarchy" is simply not true. What was that commandment again?

Likewise saying that similarities in creation equal evolution is not true.

 

[EternalDragon]

Looking higher up the tree, a recent study conducted by Darwinian scientists tried to construct a phylogeny of animal relationships but concluded that "[d]espite the amount of data and breadth of taxa analyzed, relationships among most [animal] phyla remained unresolved."4 The basic problem is that phylogenetic trees based upon one gene or other characteristic will commonly conflict with trees based upon another gene or macro-characteristic. Indeed, the Cambrian explosion, where nearly all of the major living animal phyla (or basic body plans) appeared over 500 million years ago in a geological instant, raises a serious challenge to Darwinian explanations of common descent.

The nice, neat, nested hierarchy of a grand Tree of Life predicted by Darwinian theory has not been found. Evolutionary biologists are increasingly appealing to epicycles like horizontal gene transfer, differing rates of evolution, abrupt molecular radiation, convergent evolution (even convergent molecular evolution), and other ad hoc rationalizations to reconcile discrepancies between phylogenetic hypothesis. Darwinian biology is not explaining the molecular data; it is forced to explain away the data.

- See more at: Darwin's Failed Predictions, Slide 9: "Saving the Tree of Life" (from JudgingPBS.com) - Evolution News & Views

4. Antonis Rokas, Dirk Krüger, Sean B. Carroll, "Animal Evolution and the Molecular Signature of Radiations Compressed in Time," Science, Vol. 310:1933-1938 (Dec. 23, 2005).

 

[Loudmouth]

There is no nested hierarchy. There I said it.

Then you are no longer using the same evidence. You are ignoring the evidence. The nested hierarchy is real.

 

[Loudmouth]

Looking higher up the tree, a recent study conducted by Darwinian scientists tried to construct a phylogeny of animal relationships but concluded that "[d]espite the amount of data and breadth of taxa analyzed, relationships among most [animal] phyla remained unresolved."4

Yes, because there is not enough preserved evidence from the Cambrian to resolve these trees. It is simply a problem of not having enough data yet. None of the data has shown that a nested hierarchy is false. It is simply a matter of determining which nested hierarchy is correct.

Are you now arguing that the created kinds are at the Phylum level? Are you arguing that Vertebrates, which includes everything from sea squirts to us, is a single created kind?