Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution

[Split Rock]

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.

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.

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.

Why are spiders a kind and not mammals? How about primates? Please don't tell me you have studied the variation within each category and determined that mammals or primates vary too much and spiders do not... because I know you did no such thing. Primates give rise to primates... therefore, they are a kind. Mammals give rise to mammals, therefore they are a kind. No different from your argument.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because the simple fact of the matter is you are not asking them to change an existing theory or consider a new scientific theory, but to change their religion of evolution.

Evolution is a scientific theory supported by scientific evidence. It is not a religion. Why do you continue to lie about this?

One would expect similarities between kinds, given that 1) the same Creator made them all, and 2) they were all created from the dust of the Earth.

However, we would not expect a nested hierarchy since the Creator of birds and mammals would be free to combine those features for a new species. It is not simply similarities that evidence evolution. It is the NESTED HIERARCHY that evidences evolution.

How many times do we need to go over this?

If there were no similarities at all, then one could discount creation.

Why? Isn't an all knowing and all powerful creator capable of creating millions of species that don't share any homologous structures?

In fact, why would such a creator need to reuse a single design? The only reason that humans reuse designs is because we are limited in knowledge, time, and resources. Without those limitations it would be just as easy to make each species from scratch as it would to reuse designs.

One also expects dissimilarities even amongst kinds, given that we know kinds adapt to their surroundings, yet always remain the same kind.

Still waiting for your definition of kind.

You can be sure they have confused fossils with different species when in reality most are more likely the same kind, just different appearances.

You have to define what a kind.

They talk as if they have genetically sampled these million year old fossils.

We have tested living species and found that they are our cousins.

They want things to occur in the past that we have never observed once,

False. We are pointing to the mechanisms of mutation, selection, and speciation, all of which have been observed and all of which can be tested.

They pick and choose what data to accept, and what to ignore. If the data contradicts their belief system it is the data that is in error, not their beliefs.

What beliefs, and what data?

[qutoe]It is a sad, sad, state that mainstream has let science fall into where only data that conforms to ones belief system is deemed valid. [/quote]

What data is being deemed invalid?

Science is observation and testing, and then fitting a theory to what is observed, not discarding data so that what is left fits the theory.

What data is being discarded?

How many years have they experimented with bacteria and virus's, yet they have never once evolved into more complex life, just stayed what they originally were.

You can't reverse 4 billion years worth of evolution in a few years in a lab. Bacteria are highly specialized at being single celled organisms.

From the Petri dish to the whale, kind after kind; always has been always will be.

You still have not defined kind.

When they start the ad homenim remarks, you know they are on the run, flopping like a fish out of the water with not one shred of evidence to back them up. When they attack the author, while ignoring the argument, it is from lack of any evidence to present in return.

When you start using religion as a term of derision to hide from the evidence, it is obvious that you have lost.

Don't let them fool you with their false religious beliefs.

Another example of you losing the debate.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Because the simple fact of the matter is you are not asking them to change an existing theory or consider a new scientific theory, but to change their religion of evolution. You are challenging their belief system, and they will resist to the very end despite the scientific facts that prove evolution is nothing but flights of fancy.

Where is the supposed challenge to the science of evolution?

One would expect similarities between kinds, given that 1) the same Creator made them all,

Non sequitur there's no reason to assume a designer would make similar things. The same guy designed English red telephone boxes and the Battersea power station. Unless you can provide a specific reason with evidence that your hypothetical designer was restricted to mimicking common descent you have no case.

and 2) they were all created from the dust of the Earth.

Dust of the earth is mostly silica. That's just nonsense.

If there were no similarities at all, then one could discount creation. One also expects dissimilarities even amongst kinds, given that we know kinds adapt to their surroundings, yet always remain the same kind.

Like tetrapods remain the same kind.

You can be sure they have confused fossils with different species when in reality most are more likely the same kind, just different appearances. Just as we observe today. They talk as if they have genetically sampled these million year old fossils. They want things to occur in the past that we have never observed once, convienently beyond our ability to test, yet claim it is a science. They pick and choose what data to accept, and what to ignore. If the data contradicts their belief system it is the data that is in error, not their beliefs.

Nothing in the observed fossil data supports special creation.

It is a sad, sad, state that mainstream has let science fall into where only data that conforms to ones belief system is deemed valid. Science is observation and testing, and then fitting a theory to what is observed, not discarding data so that what is left fits the theory.

Discarding what data?

How many years have they experimented with bacteria and virus's, yet they have never once evolved into more complex life, just stayed what they originally were.

Nonsense. There have been many observations of increased complexity in bacteria and viruses.

From the Petri dish to the whale, kind after kind; always has been always will be.

Eukaryotes will always be eukaryotes.

When they start the ad homenim remarks, you know they are on the run, flopping like a fish out of the water with not one shred of evidence to back them up. When they attack the author, while ignoring the argument, it is from lack of any evidence to present in return.

Not one creationist on earth seems to know the difference between an insult and an ad hominen.

Don't let them fool you with their false religious beliefs. Science does not support them, but does support Creation.

What supports creation?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Where is the supposed challenge to the science of evolution?


Dust of the earth is mostly silica. That's just nonsense.

Which is just the same protons. neutrons, and electrons as in any other substance, just depends how you combine (form) them together. Do you actually believe that an electron in a gold atom is different than an electron in a carbon atom except for charge? Are you that far gone in your classification systems?

Like tetrapods remain the same kind.

Agreed, Creation theory is science based, kind after kind, exactly as observed. No argument there.

Nothing in the observed fossil data supports special creation.

Everything in the fossil record supports creation. All fossils are fully formed, in abundant supply, and are never observed to evolve into anything else. In any of your claimed geological layers, there are no half formed kinds evolving into something different. Instead we find the extinction of life, followed by all new forms of life. Each again fully formed, with no transitional kinds.

Discarding what data?

The real fossil record for one. There are kinds propagating after kind for hundereds of millions of years, then pfff. Then new kinds in great abundance spring up from nowhere in the fossil record as old life goes extinct. Not once, but in at least 7 distinct acts, counting the latest and greatest, the formation of man and all the kinds with him. This according to evolutionists time scale reckoning. We ain't just talking dino going extinct and then man being created. We are talking the same thing occurs In every major geological era.

What supports creation?

An easier question would be what supports evolution. Absolutely nothing. Not even your own genetic theories. In the end even it simply supports kind after kind. Not dino evolving into birds. Got news for you, birds have always been birds. Thos animals that went extinct in every epoch were replaced by new creations, every single time. You got over 100 million fossils in museums, the best you can do is a couple of fragments now and then almost always separated by distance?

It seems to me the fossil record shows slow evolution is quite impossible, as the fossil records shows extinction and rise of new fully formed kinds in each and every case. But we do know of a few that survived one destruction and creation into another. We have sharks, crocodile, Coelacanths, that survived from one age into the next. And except for appearance changes, they are still sharks, crocodiles, etc. The croc and shark that survived simply changed size, while life never found before springs up suddenly and dramatically, everywhere over the entire globe.

Yah, that fossil record really does support your side. If one has been blinded maybe.

 

[Davian]

And yet evolutions require a leap of faith just like the creationists. How did life start from non-life? Well it just did say the evolutionists, have faith that it is so, believe. Come worship at the alter of evolution.

There is not one shred of physical evidence for evolution. It has never been observed, only kind after kind with variation in appearance. A cat has never became a different kind, no matter how its genes are manipulated, nor has a dog, rat, mouse or fruit-fly.

Not a single kind in existence has ever been observed to evolve into another kind, yet evolutionists want me to have faith that this is so. I have a religion of how life began consistent with observations, when you get a science let me know, I do not need two religions. If you want to say you believe life spontaneously evolved from non-life that's fine, but do not present as scientific fact what is not based on a single fact at all, nor on any observation, but is merely a matter of faith that it was so.

You said, "I have a religion of how life began consistent with observations"

Show where your religion explains how the process of life began on this planet, that is consistent with scientific observations.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Why are spiders a kind and not mammals? How about primates? Please don't tell me you have studied the variation within each category and determined that mammals or primates vary too much and spiders do not... because I know you did no such thing. Primates give rise to primates... therefore, they are a kind. Mammals give rise to mammals, therefore they are a kind. No different from your argument.

Because spiders are all similar. A dog is not similar to a man. Yet both are mammals. Spiders and grasshoppers are both insects, but they are not of the same kind. Anymore than man and dog are of the same kind.

A dog does not give rise to a man, therefore they are not of the same kind. A cat does not give rise to a whale, therefore they are not the same kind. The classification line stops at common sense and what genes tell us. That spiders and grasshoppers, even though both insects, are not of the same kind. The line is clear. That man and apes, even though both are classified as primates, even though they are already mammals, are not the same kind. The genetic line is clear.

Evolutionists are simply confused as to what species are, so it is no wonder they are confused when it comes to kinds. You still haven't solved your own classification problems, let me know when you do.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You said, "I have a religion of how life began consistent with observations"

Show where your religion explains how the process of life began on this planet, that is consistent with scientific observations.

See several posts above. Your own fossil record supports it. Your own genetic tests prove it. There are only layers with the ending of one kind, and the creation of a new kind, never seen before. Not once, but at least 7 distinct times. There is no gradual evolution, the fossil record does not even remotely support such a hypothesis. The animals with man can not be traced back further than man, to the last extinction event. The animals before that, to the previous extinction event. And in every single case life sprang into existence, fully formed.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Because spiders are all similar. A dog is not similar to a man.

What objective criteria allows you to make this call?

Yet both are mammals. Spiders and grasshoppers are both insects, but they are not of the same kind. Anymore than man and dog are of the same kind.

Spiders aren't insects.

A dog does not give rise to a man, therefore they are not of the same kind.

A chihuahua does not give rise to a poodle, therefore they aren't the same kind.

A cat does not give rise to a whale, therefore they are not the same kind. The classification line stops at common sense and what genes tell us. That spiders and grasshoppers, even though both insects, are not of the same kind.

They aren't even both insects.

The line is clear.

Wut? Not by anything you've said it isn't.

That man and apes, even though both are classified as primates, even though they are already mammals, are not the same kind.

Even though they're both apes.

The genetic line is clear.

Well a chimp and a human are genetically closer than either is to a gorilla. If both chimps and gorillas are the same kind then so are humans.

Evolutionists are simply confused as to what species are, so it is no wonder they are confused when it comes to kinds. You still haven't solved your own classification problems, let me know when you do.

What do you mean "haven't solved"? Species are exactly as fuzzy a set as evolutionary theory would predict. Kinds on the other hand should be clear if special creation were true.

 

[Loudmouth]

Which is just the same protons. neutrons, and electrons as in any other substance, just depends how you combine (form) them together. Do you actually believe that an electron in a gold atom is different than an electron in a carbon atom except for charge? Are you that far gone in your classification systems?

Do you really believe that a gold atom and a carbon atom behave the same in a given chemical reaction? Do you think gold atoms can take the place of carbon atoms in our DNA?

Do you know anything about biochemistry?

Agreed, Creation theory is science based, kind after kind, exactly as observed. No argument there.

You still have not defined kind, so your claim is meaningless.

Everything in the fossil record supports creation. All fossils are fully formed, in abundant supply, and are never observed to evolve into anything else.

Fossils fall into a nested hierarchy which falsifies special creation.

Also, you have not defined "fully formed" either, so that is a meaningless term.

In any of your claimed geological layers, there are no half formed kinds evolving into something different.

Please define half formed.

Instead we find the extinction of life, followed by all new forms of life. Each again fully formed, with no transitional kinds.

Here are transitional hominids:

There are kinds propagating after kind

You still have not defined kind, so this is a meaningless claim.

An easier question would be what supports evolution. Absolutely nothing. Not even your own genetic theories. In the end even it simply supports kind after kind.

What is a kind? Please define it.

Not dino evolving into birds.

Birds are dinosaurs:

Theropoda

Got news for you, birds have always been birds.

Primates have always been primates, mammals have always been mammals, vertebrates have always been vertebrates, and euakaryotes have always been eukaryotes. So are those kinds?

It seems to me the fossil record shows slow evolution is quite impossible, as the fossil records shows extinction and rise of new fully formed kinds in each and every case.

Please define fully formed.

We have sharks, crocodile, Coelacanths, that survived from one age into the next.

We have vertebrates and mammals that survived from one age to the next.

Yah, that fossil record really does support your side. If one has been blinded maybe.

Take the blinders off and you will see the transitionals you claim don't exist.

 

[Loudmouth]

There are only layers with the ending of one kind, and the creation of a new kind, never seen before.

Define kind please.

There is no gradual evolution, the fossil record does not even remotely support such a hypothesis.

Gradual evolution of human features in hominids:

 

[Skaloop]

Which is just the same protons. neutrons, and electrons as in any other substance, just depends how you combine (form) them together. Do you actually believe that an electron in a gold atom is different than an electron in a carbon atom except for charge? Are you that far gone in your classification systems?

No. They aren't even different in charge.

 

[Loudmouth]

A dog is not similar to a man.

Yes, they are. We are both mammals, as was our common ancestor. It is mammals producing mammals.

Spiders and grasshoppers are both insects, but they are not of the same kind.

Why not?

A dog does not give rise to a man, therefore they are not of the same kind.

Chihuahuas do not give rise to great danes, therefore they are different kinds.

A cat does not give rise to a whale, therefore they are not the same kind.

A lion does not give rise to a cheetah, therefore they are different kinds.

The classification line stops at common sense and what genes tell us.

My common sense says that all life shares a common ancestor, and the genes back it.

That spiders and grasshoppers, even though both insects, are not of the same kind. The line is clear.

Then show us the line. Also, spiders are not insects. However, grasshoppers and spiders are both arthropods.

That man and apes, even though both are classified as primates, even though they are already mammals, are not the same kind. The genetic line is clear.

Then show us the line. Last I checked, chimps share more DNA with humans than they do with any other ape. The genetics demonstrates that humans are the same kind as apes.

Evolutionists are simply confused as to what species are, so it is no wonder they are confused when it comes to kinds.

Evolution should blur the line between species. That's what it does. The very fact that species are fluid is evidence that evolution is correct.

You still haven't solved your own classification problems, let me know when you do.

We have said from the very start that any level above species is arbitrary. You are the one claiming it is not arbitrary, so show us that it isn't.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Which is just the same protons. neutrons, and electrons as in any other substance, just depends how you combine (form) them together. Do you actually believe that an electron in a gold atom is different than an electron in a carbon atom except for charge? Are you that far gone in your classification systems?

I note you can't address my first point so go on some weird new age rant about dust.

Agreed, Creation theory is science based, kind after kind, exactly as observed. No argument there.

Good. Look up "tetrapod."

Everything in the fossil record supports creation. All fossils are fully formed, in abundant supply, and are never observed to evolve into anything else.

Fossils are rocks, creationism doesn't even allow enough time for them to form at all. Rocks can't evolve. You are swinging at air. The abundance of some fossils is a big problem for creationism. The biomass represented in the cliffs of Dover would take the entire resources of the planet for 100 thousand years. How do you fit that into your creationist time frames?

In any of your claimed geological layers, there are no half formed kinds evolving into something different. Instead we find the extinction of life, followed by all new forms of life. Each again fully formed, with no transitional kinds.

Transitional=/=half formed (whatever half formed is supposed to mean) transitional forms share features of two groups and the record is repleat with them.

The real fossil record for one. There are kinds propagating after kind for hundereds of millions of years, then pfff. Then new kinds in great abundance spring up from nowhere in the fossil record as old life goes extinct. Not once, but in at least 7 distinct acts, counting the latest and greatest, the formation of man and all the kinds with him. This according to evolutionists time scale reckoning. We ain't just talking dino going extinct and then man being created. We are talking the same thing occurs In every major geological era.

And yet vertebrates remain vertebrates and you never see derived features popping up in different layers. No feathers in the Triassic no fur in the Cambrian. The succession of forms follows an evolutionary pattern.

An easier question would be what supports evolution. Absolutely nothing. Not even your own genetic theories. In the end even it simply supports kind after kind. Not dino evolving into birds.

Birds are dinosaur kind.

Got news for you, birds have always been birds.

Yep.

Thos animals that went extinct in every epoch were replaced by new creations, every single time. You got over 100 million fossils in museums, the best you can do is a couple of fragments now and then almost always separated by distance?

It seems to me the fossil record shows slow evolution is quite impossible, as the fossil records shows extinction and rise of new fully formed kinds in each and every case. But we do know of a few that survived one destruction and creation into another. We have sharks, crocodile, Coelacanths, that survived from one age into the next.

And we see that no modern sharks are represented in the 400 million year old record, no modern coelacanths in the Jurassic no modern crocodiles in the Triassic. They have all evolved. Quite a lot. Following just the kind if pattern of diversification and descent with modification that evolutionary theory predicts.

And except for appearance changes, they are still sharks, crocodiles, etc. The croc and shark that survived simply changed size, while life never found before springs up suddenly and dramatically, everywhere over the entire globe.

Yah, that fossil record really does support your side. If one has been blinded maybe.

So far I don't see any support for special creation here, just assertions that the data that demonstrates evolution doesn't demonstrate evolution. You have confused your strawman nonsense with the real thing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because spiders are all similar. A dog is not similar to a man. Yet both are mammals. Spiders and grasshoppers are both insects, but they are not of the same kind. Anymore than man and dog are of the same kind.

I love it he says that dogs and man are not similar and then he points out how they are similar.

A dog does not give rise to a man, therefore they are not of the same kind. A cat does not give rise to a whale, therefore they are not the same kind. The classification line stops at common sense and what genes tell us. That spiders and grasshoppers, even though both insects, are not of the same kind. The line is clear. That man and apes, even though both are classified as primates, even though they are already mammals, are not the same kind. The genetic line is clear.

That is because your earlier examples were in different clades.

Since people are by definition apes an ape gave rise to us. We are in the clade of great apes. You can refine that more, but once you do that you have moved down the evolutionary line.

Evolutionists are simply confused as to what species are, so it is no wonder they are confused when it comes to kinds. You still haven't solved your own classification problems, let me know when you do.

No, we know what species are. We can give a working definition of species. It is your group that is confused. You cannot give a working definition of "kinds".

 

[Subduction Zone]

And one more point. Justatruthseeker needs to go back to elementary school. Spiders are not insects.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. They aren't even different in charge.

They could even be the same electron:

One-electron universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seriously probably not. It is an interesting idea.

 

[Davian]

See several posts above. Your own fossil record supports it. Your own genetic tests prove it. There are only layers with the ending of one kind, and the creation of a new kind, never seen before. Not once, but at least 7 distinct times. There is no gradual evolution, the fossil record does not even remotely support such a hypothesis. The animals with man can not be traced back further than man, to the last extinction event. The animals before that, to the previous extinction event. And in every single case life sprang into existence, fully formed.

That is not what I asked. I am not talking about the diversity of life on this planet.

You said, "I have a religion of how life began consistent with observations"

I asked, show where your religion explains how the process of life began on this planet, that is consistent with scientific observations. How did life begin? Magic?

 

[gluadys]

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.

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.

Then why are spiders a kind? There are approximately five times as many species of spiders as there are species of mammals. Or if you want to look at the family level there are more than twice as many families (equivalent to cat family, dog family horse family) among spiders as there are mammalian families.

If mammal is too broad a definition to be a kind spider should be too, as it is even broader.

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.

Yep, just like the theory of evolution says.

 

[lasthero]

They talk as if they have genetically sampled these million year old fossils.

Um...we have.

Fossil genes and microbes in the ol... [Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI

DNA extraction from fossil eggshell. [Methods Mol Biol. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI

| The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

World's Oldest Known DNA Discovered : Discovery News

700,000-year-old horse fossil oldest ever found from DNA mapped animal | National Post

And I barely looked.

 

[Split Rock]

Because spiders are all similar. A dog is not similar to a man. Yet both are mammals. Spiders and grasshoppers are both insects, but they are not of the same kind. Anymore than man and dog are of the same kind.

1. If dogs are not similar to man, why are they both mammals?
2. I cannot believe that you don't know that spiders are not insects.
3. You are being very arbitrary in what you are assigning the term "kind" to.

A dog does not give rise to a man, therefore they are not of the same kind. A cat does not give rise to a whale, therefore they are not the same kind. The classification line stops at common sense and what genes tell us. That spiders and grasshoppers, even though both insects, are not of the same kind. The line is clear. That man and apes, even though both are classified as primates, even though they are already mammals, are not the same kind. The genetic line is clear.

1. Genes tell us that we are more closely related to chimpanzees than many of the species you have assigned to the same "kind."
2. If a extinct primate was ancestral to humans, are they the same kind?
3. No one is claiming dogs gave rise to man or a cat to a whale. This is a Strawman argument.

Evolutionists are simply confused as to what species are, so it is no wonder they are confused when it comes to kinds. You still haven't solved your own classification problems, let me know when you do.

Confused??? You think a spider is an insect, and you tell us WE are confused??? That is hilarious!!