Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution

[Loudmouth]

I like how evolutionist supporters like to simplify things to make it sound convincing.

There are a lot more in differences than mutations between a chimp and a human.

No, there isn't. Humans and chimps are different because the sequence of our DNA is different. Humans and chimps demonstrate that genomes can change by millions of bases and you still get a well-functioning species.

If mutations are as problematic as you claim then there would be only one species on Earth since any change from that species genome would be lethal.

 

[lasthero]

I like how evolutionist supporters like to simplify things to make it sound convincing.

There are a lot more in differences than mutations between a chimp and a human.

I like how, despite this being a topic about your Top Ten Problems, you've yet to actually respond to any of the posts that actually addressed those ten problems in any meaningful way.

 

[EternalDragon]

No, there isn't. Humans and chimps are different because the sequence of our DNA is different. Humans and chimps demonstrate that genomes can change by millions of bases and you still get a well-functioning species.

If mutations are as problematic as you claim then there would be only one species on Earth since any change from that species genome would be lethal.

You are assuming humans came from chimps simply because of some similarities in design. The differences however are too great to allow for any kind of common ancestry.

You are also making it too simple yet again. What are the similarities in just the Y chromosome of chimp and human DNA for example? These would have to match up as well.

 

[Split Rock]

I like how evolutionist supporters like to simplify things to make it sound convincing.

There are a lot more in differences than mutations between a chimp and a human.

That's rich, coming from you.

"Look, its sedimentary rock... The Flood!"

"Look, its volcanic rock.... The Flood!"

"Look, its a crater... The Flood!"

Tell us exactly what differences there are between humans and chimps that are not found in DNA.

 

[lasthero]

You are assuming humans came from chimps simply because of some similarities in design.

Do you assume that dogs came from wolves because of similarities in design?

 

[EternalDragon]

I like how, despite this being a topic about your Top Ten Problems, you've yet to actually respond to any of the posts that actually addressed those ten problems in any meaningful way.

Honestly I did not see any response that came close to addressing those problems. They are pretty tough problems for evolution.

40+ pages of posts, about all kinds of different issues, is hard for one person to sift through and answer.

 

[lasthero]

Honestly I did not see any response that came close to addressing those problems. They are pretty touch problems for evolution.

Plus 40+ pages of posts about all kinds of different issues is hard for one person to sift through and answer.

Actually, no.

The problems were all addressed by three people on the second page of this thread. You responded to them all with that silly 'magic' video.

If you feel their answers weren't adequate, show how so. All you did was copy and paste something and people took their hard time responding - the least you could do is put up a modicum of effort and defend what you posted.

 

[EternalDragon]

Do you assume that dogs came from wolves because of similarities in design?

No, I assume that because all scientific evidence points to that. There is no scientific evidence for whales changing to something that walks on land to something that breathes on land to a half whale, half wolf and then finally to wolves. Evidence is quite clear that sharks give birth to a variety of sharks, whales to a variety of whales and canines to a variety of canines.

 

[Split Rock]

Honestly I did not see any response that came close to addressing those problems. They are pretty tough problems for evolution.

40+ pages of posts, about all kinds of different issues, is hard for one person to sift through and answer.

No, I assume that because all scientific evidence points to that. There is no scientific evidence for whales changing to something that walks on land to something that breathes on land to a half whale, half wolf and then finally to wolves. Evidence is quite clear that sharks give birth to a variety of sharks, whales to a variety of whales and canines to a variety of canines.

Since you are finding it hard to sift through responses here, I will sum up a question that has been asked of you in numerous threads that you have failed to answer. It also addresses your last remark.

Why aren't mammals considered by you to be a "kind," since mammals always give rise to mammals?

Also, where did you get the idea that whales evolved into wolves????
Here is the evidence for whales evolving from terrestial ungulates, in any case:
Philip D. Gingerich
Digital Library of Dolphin Development (DLDD)

 

[lasthero]

There is no scientific evidence for whales changing to something that walks on land to something that breathes on land to a half whale, half wolf and then finally to wolves.

True - but there's no scientific evidence for birds turning into fish, either...because no one ever proposed that. Whoever said that wolves are the descendants of whales?

Evidence is quite clear that sharks give birth to a variety of sharks, whales to a variety of whales and canines to a variety of canines.

Which is what evolution states. We keep telling you this.

So, anyway, you accept that wolves are descended dogs because of DNA evidence - so why can you accept that humans are descended from apes because of DNA evidence?

 

[EternalDragon]

Actually, no.

The problems were all addressed by three people on the second page of this thread. You responded to them all with that silly 'magic' video.

If you feel their answers weren't adequate, show how so. All you did was copy and paste something and people took their hard time responding - the least you could do is put up a modicum of effort and defend what you posted.

I believe I have addressed most of them. I know I addressed so called junk DNA with citations. Junk DNA does not exist.

I've addressed natural selection, maybe not here but on other posts. IC is a valid argument despite the outcry that it isn't. Evolutionists have a tendency to make things appear too simple so as to be able to debunk the claims.

Basically the answers are always "the supernatural force we call evolution did it."

 

[lasthero]

I believe I have addressed most of them.

No, you didn't.

On the second page of this topic, there are three responses to your Top Ten, clearly laid out. If you're so certain of your position, why haven't you picked them all apart?

Basically the answers are always "the supernatural force we call evolution did it."

All right. Then it should be a simple matter to show that by taking those posts apart. So...why haven't you?

 

[Split Rock]

I believe I have addressed most of them. I know I addressed so called junk DNA with citations. Junk DNA does not exist.

You cited nothing that says "junk DNA does not exist." You still have not addressed teh question as to why mammals are not a "kind."

I've addressed natural selection, maybe not here but on other posts. IC is a valid argument despite the outcry that it isn't. Evolutionists have a tendency to make things appear too simple so as to be able to debunk the claims.

Really, how about your over-simplification of "canines are a kind and felines are a kind," when we have asked for a definition of what a "kind" is?

Basically the answers are always "the supernatural force we call evolution did it."

Falsehood. No one here but you creationists have even made this claim. Evolution is based on known natural mechanisms: Natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow.

 

[Skaloop]

I believe I have addressed most of them. I know I addressed so called junk DNA with citations. Junk DNA does not exist.

I've addressed natural selection, maybe not here but on other posts. IC is a valid argument despite the outcry that it isn't. Evolutionists have a tendency to make things appear too simple so as to be able to debunk the claims.

Basically the answers are always "the supernatural force we call evolution did it."

Have you been able to come up with a workable definition of kind yet? That's the one thing I'm really looking forward to, because I've never actually heard one. AV's got closest with his "top of God's taxon" attempt, but it doesn't address how one determines what kind a creature belongs to, or what differentiates one kind from another.

 

[EternalDragon]

No, you didn't.

On the second page of this topic, there are three responses to your Top Ten, clearly laid out. If you're so certain of your position, why haven't you picked them all apart?



All right. Then it should be a simple matter to show that by taking those posts apart. So...why haven't you?

The original post has citations that already do that.

 

[lasthero]

The original post has citations that already do that.

And they were all refuted. Three times. Four if you count when theBeardedDude tore them apart a few pages back.

So are you going to defend them?

 

[AV1611VET]

Have you been able to come up with a workable definition of kind yet? That's the one thing I'm really looking forward to, because I've never actually heard one. AV's got closest with his "top of God's taxon" attempt, but it doesn't address how one determines what kind a creature belongs to, or what differentiates one kind from another.

QV please:

I want to see where this goes.

A kind is a subset of life that is linked back to God as its Common Designer.

Notice how Luke does it here with mankind:

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Notice I said "that is linked back to God" ... not: "that can be linked back to God."

The lines, of course, would be incompatible with current evolutionary models, since current evolutionary models link kinds together (such as mankind with beasts of the field [apes]).

Kinds also have their share of missing links, therefore a horse, for example, cannot be daisy-chained back to God as its Common Designer through its own kind (probably the satyr) in the fossil record.

Same with a bull, it cannot be daisy-chained back to God as its Common Designer through its own kind (probably the unicorn) in the fossil record.

As I said, let's see where this goes.

 

[EternalDragon]

You cited nothing that says "junk DNA does not exist." You still have not addressed teh question as to why mammals are not a "kind."

Genetics Is Too Complex for Evolutionists to Fake It Anymore - Evolution News & Views

Mammals are not a kind because it is too broad of a definition.

Really, how about your over-simplification of "canines are a kind and felines are a kind," when we have asked for a definition of what a "kind" is?

That is not an over simplification. Bears are a kind, dogs are a kind, cats are a kind, horses are a kind, spiders are a kind, apes and monkeys are a kind, humans are a kind. Now you can stop asking for a definition.

Falsehood. No one here but you creationists have even made this claim. Evolution is based on known natural mechanisms: Natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow.

Those processes cause variety in a kind. Nothing more. The idea that a lot of time will cause change to a new kind is wishful thinking at best and has no evidence in science. From the fossil record onward.

 

[lasthero]

Bears are a kind, dogs are a kind, cats are a kind, horses are a kind, spiders are a kind, apes and monkeys are a kind, humans are a kind. Now you can stop asking for a definition.

But that's not a definition. Giving examples of something is not a definition.

If a child asked you if what an automobile was, you wouldn't define it by telling him that 'trucks, vans, and cars'. That tells him nothing. He would have no idea why those three things are automobiles and why, say, a bicycle wouldn't be. He could assume a bicycle and a train are automobiles simply because they have wheels, thinking wheels are what makes something an automobile.

Whereas if you DEFINE what an automobile is and give him parameters, he can figure it out on his own without your help. He'll know why a bicycle and a train aren't considered automobiles because he'll understand that they lack the defining properties.

 

[Loudmouth]

I believe I have addressed most of them. I know I addressed so called junk DNA with citations. Junk DNA does not exist.

If you mean junk as in DNA the organism can do just fine without, then yes there is junk DNA.

For example, the bladderwort genome is just 82 million bases with 75% of the genome made up of genes.

Sandwalk: What Does the Bladderwort Genome Tell Us about Junk DNA?

Compare that to other species. We humans have 3 billion bases, only 3% of which are genes. Even the ENCODE project agreed that only 20% was under selective pressure meaning that 80% of our genome does not have sequence specific function that is selectable. Compare this to a species of single celled amoeba who have 670 billion bases. Do you really think it takes over 200 times more DNA to make a single celled amoeba than it does a human?

IC is a valid argument despite the outcry that it isn't.

You have yet to show that IC systems can not evolve.

Basically the answers are always "the supernatural force we call evolution did it."

That is a lie. The observed mechanisms of mutation and selectoin are not supernatural. They are observed. Why do you lie about this?