Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution

[Lethe]

Take, for example, a shark, a dolphin and a bear. On a cursory examination, the bear seems the odd one out. But if you examine their teeth, their skeletons, their reproductive systems, their biochemistry, their DNA, and dozens of other things that might shed light on who is related to whom and how closely, it is the shark that is left behind.

Or the sugar glider, the flying squirrel, and the human.

On cursory examination the flying squirrel and the sugar glider appear very similar. But the human and the squirrel are actually more similar and there is far less genetic difference between the human and the squirrel than the sugar glider and the squirrel.

 

[Loudmouth]

Spiders

1. Same general limb arrangements
2. Same vascualr system.
3. Same nervous system.
4. same in everything but looks.

The same for mammals.

So now not only is evolution a one in a billion shot, but you want the exact same creatures, all over the globe, to evolve all at the exact same time into the exact same creatures, not once, but billions of times.

We do? Since when?

Because all you have are fossil records that show kind after kind after kind.

Exactly as it should be if evolution is true.

Hows that DNA matching between bears and bats going?

Just fine, thank you. In fact, they are using the DNA of different mammal species to reconstruct the genome of the common ancestor of the mammal kind.

Reconstructing large regions of an ancestral mammalian genome in silico

Or between bears and spiders?

You mean the bilaterian kind?

Does this mean that I am a bat too, since I share all the same similarities you think make bears and bats the same?

Do it mean that chihuahuas are also great danes because they share features with great danes? Do you not understand how evolution works?

Sure makes more common sense and agrees with genetic testing than putting a bear and bat into the same kind.

All you see are bats becoming bats, bears becoming bears, spiders becoming spiders, cats becoming cats, dogs becoming dogs.

Primates becoming primates, mammals becoming mammals, and
vertebrates becoming vertebrates.

Mammals is not a species,

Neither is bird or spider.

it is a man-made class consisting of hundreds and thousands of species or kinds, like insects.

What criteria did you use to determine this?

Until you fix your species problem you will forever be confused.

What problem?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Spiders

1. Same general limb arrangements
2. Same vascualr system.
3. Same nervous system.
4. same in everything but looks.

While you want bears and bats to be the same kind, Just a riot.

As a matter of fact you want every living thing on this planet to be descended from the same original species. Yet never fail to argue that the genetic pool with just two animals would not be sufficient to continue the species.

So now not only is evolution a one in a billion shot, but you want the exact same creatures, all over the globe, to evolve all at the exact same time into the exact same creatures, not once, but billions of times.

Because all you have are fossil records that show kind after kind after kind.

Hows that DNA matching between bears and bats going? Or between bears and spiders?

The evidence is right in front of you.

You should know by looking at the variation in dogs that looks are not all that important. There are much more important traits that are shared by all dogs. Just as there are more important traits shared by bats and bears that make them closer to each other than bats and mice.

And the DNA similarities are tops on the list. If creationists wanted to disprove evolution that is a tool they could try to use. The question is "Why don't they?" And the answer is because they know that the DNA will support evolution.

There are all sorts of ways to disprove evolution and yet, creationists can't. That should tell you something.

 

[Lethe]

You people are just so silly.

Does this mean that I am a bat too, since I share all the same similarities you think make bears and bats the same?

There is a clade which contains humans, bats, and bears (and many others).

There is a clade which contains humans and chimpanzees.

There is a clade which contains humans and chimpanzees and gorillas.

A clade is just a branch of the tree. And yeah, before genetics, classification was entirely based on morphology.

 

[Split Rock]

Spiders

1. Same general limb arrangements
2. Same vascualr system.
3. Same nervous system.
4. same in everything but looks.

While you want bears and bats to be the same kind, Just a riot.

According to what you just posted, spiders are comparable to mammals. Why aren't they their own "kinds."

Oh btw, have you figured out yet why spiders aren't insects? How many limbs do spiders have?

As a matter of fact you want every living thing on this planet to be descended from the same original species. Yet never fail to argue that the genetic pool with just two animals would not be sufficient to continue the species.

Non sequiter. Populations evolve, not individuals.

So now not only is evolution a one in a billion shot, but you want the exact same creatures, all over the globe, to evolve all at the exact same time into the exact same creatures, not once, but billions of times.

One more time for the reading challenged: Populations evolve, not individuals.

Because all you have are fossil records that show kind after kind after kind.

The same kind, yes.

Hows that DNA matching between bears and bats going? Or between bears and spiders?

You think this hasn't been done??

You people are just so silly.

Says the creationist sage who can't tell a spider from an insect.

Does this mean that I am a bat too, since I share all the same similarities you think make bears and bats the same? Or would maybe Chinese, African, Italian, Japanese, English, even though all different races be humans, all the same kind? Like doberman, chow, rottweiler, wolf, all different breeds, but all the same kind. Like lion, tiger, jaguar, panther, all different breeds, but all the same kind. Like black bear, polar bear, brown bear, panda, different breeds, but all the same kind. Like vampire bat, fruit bat, bulldog bat, all different breeds, but all the same kind. Like tarantula, black widow, orbweaver, all different breeds, but all the same kind.

We are not descended from bats. The ancestor of bats diverged from our ancestor in the past. It does make us both mammals, though.

Sure makes more common sense and agrees with genetic testing than putting a bear and bat into the same kind. All you see are bats becoming bats, bears becoming bears, spiders becoming spiders, cats becoming cats, dogs becoming dogs. Never once have you ever observed anything different. You got not one shred of evidence that such has ever occurred, in the present, or in the past.

One more time for the reading challenged: All we see are animals producing animals, vertebrates producing vertebrates, mammals producing mammals, primates producing primates, etc.

Mammals is not a species, it is a man-made class consisting of hundreds and thousands of species or kinds, like insects. Until you fix your species problem you will forever be confused.

But according to you spiders and insects are all one happy "kind," despite the millions of species they cover. Who is confused again??

The evidence is right in front of you.

And you keep ignoring it. Even worse, you continue to contradict yourself... probably because you have twisted your mind into a pretzel to avoid reality.

 

[Loudmouth]

Here is your challenge, creationists. The link below shows the eukaryote kind. I challenge you to find any species that evolved in that tree that is no longer a eukaruyote:

Eukaryotes

 

[Lethe]

According to what you just posted, spiders are comparable to mammals. Why aren't they their own "kinds."
...
And you keep ignoring it. Even worse, you continue to contradict yourself... probably because you have twisted your mind into a pretzel to avoid reality.

As a piece of advice, I would never suggest making or replying to a string of accusations. It just gives people the opportunity to pick up on your weakest argument.

Also, it splits the discussion pretty fast.

 

[EternalDragon]

Your own self inflicted ignorance cannot be used to argue against evolution.

All it does is to make you a laughing stock.

I must be afflicted by the same ignorance.

 

[CabVet]

I must be afflicted by the same ignorance.

Oh trust me, you are not alone.

 

[gluadys]

I am confused, are you arguing for evolution or against it?

What I am saying is that you have no coherent concept of "kind". It is all based on your limited personal experience of different sorts of animals. You obviously have a much more limited experience of spiders than of mammals, so you underestimate the differences among spiders and/or overestimate the differences among mammals. It makes no sense to divvy up mammals into several different kinds and include all spiders as just one kind.

What similarities between bats and bears? All I see are differences, in not only form, but size, ecological niche, mating habits, feeding habits.

All differences you also find in spiders. Contrast the form of a jumping spider with a brown recluse
http://mrwriteon.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/apache_jumping_spider_web.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JVQICT5q5...Jo/ZqISjblVu9E/s1600/brown-recluse-spider.jpg

Contrast the size difference between a tarantula (up to a foot across) and a black widow (the size of a pea). Other differences: the black widow traps insects in her web, the tarantula hunts small animals like mice, pouncing on them.

There is even an African spider that goes fishing, mostly for tadpoles, but will even eat a whole frog.

Yes, these two look so similar.

http://images.nationalgeographic.co.../005/cache/common-vampire-bat_505_600x450.jpg

http://inserbia.info/news/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/grizzly.jpg

Especially the teeth! Quite similar in eyes and ears too.

While these, these have so many differences.

http://www.utexas.edu/courses/zoo384l/sirena/species/spiders/photos/15spiders.jpg

Not bad for a small sample.

We could add more variation easily.
try these:
http://www.mun.ca/biology/dinnes/spider.jpg
http://www.dereilanatureinn.ca/woodlands/spiders/images/l-17Spider.jpg
http://www.articlesweb.org/blog/wp-...-spiders/top-information-about-spiders-09.jpg
http://www.public-domain-image.com/animals/insects/spider/slides/spiders-spiderwebs.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KbhbLJfGjKg/UAa2qLVm37I/AAAAAAAANC8/keSah9E7OLQ/s640/Spider3.jpg

Thanks for pointing that out and setting me straight. For a minute I thought spiders all looked generally alike, like as with dogs and cats. But know I realize just how much bears and bats look exactly alike. I was confused there for a bit and just thought bears and bats didn't look alike at all, while spiders did. Silly me.

Very silly. Especially offering only the choice of "exactly alike" or "not alike at all". The truth, for both mammals and spiders is "alike in some ways" and "different in some ways".

The question remains: why divvy up mammals into many different "kinds" and not spiders?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I must be afflicted by the same ignorance.

Yes, sadly you are.

 

[USincognito]

Hows that DNA matching between bears and bats going? Or between bears and spiders?

While I didn't find one specifically for bears and bats, 10 seconds Google Scholar produced the abstract for this paper which compares a species of bat with a species seal. Seals are members of suborder Caniformia along with bears.
Four New Mitochondrial Genomes and the Increased Stability of Evolutionary Trees of Mammals from Improved Taxon Sampling

That was in 2002.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

While I didn't find one specifically for bears and bats, 10 seconds Google Scholar produced the abstract for this paper which compares a species of bat with a species seal. Seals are members of suborder Caniformia along with bears.
Four New Mitochondrial Genomes and the Increased Stability of Evolutionary Trees of Mammals from Improved Taxon Sampling

That was in 2002.

Really? It just shows you misclassified hedgehogs and shrews as different species, but are figuring out they might be the same kind.

On this new data set there is a strong tendency for the hedgehog and its relative, the gymnure, to join with the other Laurasiatherian insectivores (mole and shrews).

Just proves scientists enjoy the name game and have no idea what belongs to what species. Just shows that instead of 4 species, we are down to one when it comes to hedgehogs, gymnure, moles, and shrews.

Just shows if you can mix up living animals, without a doubt you have mixed up extinct animals. I am looking forward to better DNA examination, so we can continue to get rid of half the species you have classified incorrectly and put them all back into their respective kinds.

 

[CabVet]

Really? It just shows you misclassified hedgehogs and shrews as different species, but are figuring out they might be the same kind.

Haha, excellent! Ladies and gentlemen, those two are now the same "kind":

 

[Herman Hedning]

Haha, excellent! Ladies and gentlemen, those two are now the same "kind":

Of course they are! The long snout kind - any child can see that. In your face Evilutionists!

 

[EternalDragon]

Really? It just shows you misclassified hedgehogs and shrews as different species, but are figuring out they might be the same kind.

That is because they used to use similar morphology to classify species. Now they use DNA similarities to classify species. Then when there is a problem they backpedal.

"Some of these ad hoc rationalizations may appear reasonable — horizontal gene transfer, convergent evolution, differing rates of evolution (rapid evolution is conveniently said to muddy any phylogenetic signal), fusion of genomes — but at the end of the day, we must call them what they are: ad hoc rationalizations designed to save a theory that has already been falsified. Because it is taken as an assumption, evolutionists effectively treat common ancestry in an unfalsifiable and unscientific fashion, where any data that contradicts the expectations of common descent is simply explained away via one of the above ad hoc rationalizations. But if we treat common descent as it ought to be treated — as a testable hypothesis — then it contradicts much data."

CSC - A Primer on the Tree of Life

 

[EternalDragon]

Of course they are! The long snout kind - any child can see that. In your face Evilutionists!

But will they blend?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is because they used to use similar morphology to classify species. Now they use DNA similarities to classify species. Then when there is a problem they backpedal.

"Some of these ad hoc rationalizations may appear reasonable — horizontal gene transfer, convergent evolution, differing rates of evolution (rapid evolution is conveniently said to muddy any phylogenetic signal), fusion of genomes — but at the end of the day, we must call them what they are: ad hoc rationalizations designed to save a theory that has already been falsified. Because it is taken as an assumption, evolutionists effectively treat common ancestry in an unfalsifiable and unscientific fashion, where any data that contradicts the expectations of common descent is simply explained away via one of the above ad hoc rationalizations. But if we treat common descent as it ought to be treated — as a testable hypothesis — then it contradicts much data."

CSC - A Primer on the Tree of Life

Please, creationist sites are not valid for scientific debates. If a site can be shown to lie rather consistently they lose all credibility. All creationist sites lie.

The crude morphology that you have tried to use has never been the sole method of determining species by scientists. You are projecting your flaws upon others and that is not honest to say the least.


Find a real source that supports your claims, not one that has been caught lying too many times in the past.

 

[EternalDragon]

Please, creationist sites are not valid for scientific debates. If a site can be shown to lie rather consistently they lose all credibility. All creationist sites lie.

The crude morphology that you have tried to use has never been the sole method of determining species by scientists. You are projecting your flaws upon others and that is not honest to say the least.


Find a real source that supports your claims, not one that has been caught lying too many times in the past.

So when real science, as you call it, finds contradictions, inconsistencies, and flat out failures of the molecular data to provide a clear picture of phylogenetic history and common descent, then ignores it all, is that not a lie? Or at best bad science?

Then the ones that expose this are called liars.

You throw that word around a lot when confronted by the real evidence.

 

[lasthero]

Except, here's the thing - Casey Luskin is a liar.

Smoke and Mirrors, Whales and Lampreys: A Guest Post by Ken Miller : The Loom