What are the Weaknesses of Evolution?

[Baggins]

By the way Baggins, one quesiton, if you don't mind answering. On your profile you say you are at sea, what is that a reference to? Just curious.

I work at sea 5 weeks on and 5 weeks off.

At the moment I am at home, so it is less than truthful

 

[Baggins]

Or perhaps they just don't accept it because in their minds it is not conclusive. I am the type of person who doesn't go with the flow very easy so I know I wouldn't care if they say science is not conclusive or can't be proved....I would want to prove it.

I haven't meet anyone who knows anything much about science and doesn't have a religious reason to reject it, reject it.

It seems a fairly straight forward piece of evidence for common ancestry. The alternative would have to the most humungous coincidence or a god that likes to mess with our minds to a patheitic degree.

You may not go with th eflow, but that is not necessarily a good thing. It is sometimes a decent idea to accept the word of people who know more than you about a subject, otherwise you will remain ignorant.

You should also know by now that science doesn't set out to prove anything, just explain the evidence to the best of its ability.

The best explanation of chromosome 2 is shared ancestry.

It's very interesting, I just wish I was a scientist that I could study it for myself. I'm sorry I don't rely on others so well. I think I could prove it otherwise because I would NOT go along with this limited evidence and I would be looking at it from another perspective. And of course, I would have the Designer helping me. How did this fushion happen anyway? and why?

You don't need to be a scientist per se, just invest a bit of time in learning about it.
If you don't want to learn about it accept what those who have learnt about it tell you. When I want to understand what happened in WW1 I go to reputable books and learn what people have gleaned because I haven't the time to go to original material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_Genome_Project#Genes_of_the_Chromosome_2_fusion_site

It's beyond question with me now. I have seen it over and over that He is real.

Ok, but you have no empiracal evidence of this. All I have to do is go to certain sites on this board and the evidence that man invents a god that shares his own prejudices stares back at me as clear as day.

But when God is taken out of the equation you limit your explanation rather than enhance it and find the real truth.

No you make it simpler. If the explanation works without god, why introduce god. It adds nothing to the explanation of human origins, or anything else.

But we were also talking about the reality of God.

A bit off topic. Unless the existence of god is a weakness in the Theoryo f Evolution

Right over my head here.

Sorry. I argue that Pauline Christianity is a mixture of Mithraism and messianic Judaism and was post crucifiction invention. I can produce evidence, but because I am not a professional theologian or historian I get a hard time in debates.

YEC??

I apologise again: Young Earth Creationist.

Not saying you are one, just that it is incompatable with intellectually honest science.

 

[Inan3]

You should also know by now that science doesn't set out to prove anything, just explain the evidence to the best of its ability.

Oh yes, you've taught me well Papa Baggins.

You don't need to be a scientist per se, just invest a bit of time in learning about it.

I want the lab, the equipment, the whole shabang.....hands on stuff. (This is never going to happen though, I know this)

If you don't want to learn about it accept what those who have learnt about it tell you. When I want to understand what happened in WW1 I go to reputable books and learn what people have gleaned because I haven't the time to go to original material. http://en.wikipedia.org/wikiChimpanzee_Genome_Project#Genes_of_the_Chromosome_2_fusion_site

It may be hard for you to believe but I have done this already. I want both sides of the arguement, though. I want every angle covered. I want every question answered. I know you can't explain it all and I really don't expect you to. You couldn't anyway. I've got too many questions. That's what I love about knowing God. He knows it all. He answers my questions.

Ok, but you have no empiracal evidence of this. All I have to do is go to certain sites on this board and the evidence that man invents a god that shares his own prejudices stares back at me as clear as day.

Empirical evidence....not sure but the evidence I do have is that lives are changed, prayers are answered, miracles happen, inner peace in the midst of hard times, etc. etc. over and over and over again. That might not mean much to you but it's enough for me.

A bit off topic. Unless the existence of god is a weakness in the Theoryo f Evolution

But it sure keeps coming up and it isn't always the Christian that brings it up first.

I apologise again: Young Earth Creationist.

Not saying you are one, just that it is incompatable with intellectually honest science.

Seeings I don't know what it is I will not comment, yet. I'm more of a Gap theory believer.

 

[NailsII]

There are actually very few weaknesses is the theory of evolution, that is why it is a very good theory.
As for the 'gaps' argument, Darwin himself saw this and noted it - but this is only part of the picture. Continual change from state A to state B means that we are all intermediates, every single generation. As there is no end and no purpose, then random chance dictates which we will find as fossils x amount of millenia down the line.
So far it has withstood every major test and is still our best explaination for our being.
Chance creates genetic diversity, evolution by natural selection favours those best suited to survice and reproduce (ie fittest).

To look at this from the begining (ie biogenesis), atoms have an affinity to other atoms, and they can (under the correct conditions) bond to one another.
When you light a match, you are basically fixing oxygen to a carbon-rich compund and releasing CO2. This reaction requires energy to start and then can, under the right conditions, continue until the source is used up.
This affinity means that complex chemicals (to an inorganic chemist) , such as sugars and simple proteins (to an organic chemist) can, quite literally, form all by themselves. This can happen in a matter of minutes, imagine what you could have if you could leave it for a couple of million years.
Fats, oils and lipids naturally avoid water; such hydrophobic tendecies mean that just dropping oil into water creates a ball of water, surrounded by an oily layer which floats in the water.
A simple cell, if you like.
If this formed around a complex protein that can self-replicate, then you have a simple cell that can copy - still a very simple cell.
Every cell we see today is vastly more complicated, purely because of the timescales involved.
If the self-creation of a living cell is statistically improbable, then it may require many millenia to be accomplished - it could not happen over night.
Thank god we have had 4.5ish billion years then.
It only had to happen once and survive long enough to reproduce.....

 

[MarcusHill]

I am completely incapable of believing without evidence. Again, trying to believe in God without evidence is like trying to believe I have no hands while holding them in front of my face.

TBF, we also have no conclusive evidence of the nonexistence of God, whereas the presence of your hands is pretty conclusive evidence that you have some. A fairer comparison would be trying to believe that you have four hands, but two of them are on your invisible, intangible arms that can't be detected by any known means. Though you can't detect them in any scientific test, every time you stumble and almost fall down, it's the effect of those extra arms that saves you.

 

[Baggins]

Oh yes, you've taught me well Papa Baggins.

Well done grasshopper.

It is very important

I want the lab, the equipment, the whole shabang.....hands on stuff. (This is never going to happen though, I know this)

If you do a college course you get your hands on all sorts of great kit. I once had a go on a multi-million pound x-ray diffraction machine to work outthe composition of an igneous rock I had found.

Organic chemistry labs are the best places for smells, bangs, and exploding glassware though.

It may be hard for you to believe but I have done this already. I want both sides of the arguement, though. I want every angle covered. I want every question answered. I know you can't explain it all and I really don't expect you to. You couldn't anyway. I've got too many questions. That's what I love about knowing God. He knows it all. He answers my questions.

Well hopefully he told you that humans have two fused chimpanzee chromosomes due to shared ancestry than, because it is the closest we will get to the truth.

I honestly cannot think of a plausible reason for chromosome 2 other than shared ancestry.

But this is just one peice of evidence of shared ancestry.

The human genome project was the perfect example of the possible fallsification of common ancestry and hence the Theory of Evolution. We had postulated common ancestry with other apes based on shared characteristics and morphology. What would have happened if we had sequenced the genomes and found we were genetically closer to chickens than other apes?

But once again the ToE came through a test with flying colours.

As it did with chromosome 2, why should we have one fewer chromosome than chimps if we are so closely related? When we sequenced the genome we found the answer, one of our chromosomes is formed from the fusion of two chimp chromosomes.

Every time we test the theory it comes up trumps.

Empirical evidence....not sure but the evidence I do have is that lives are changed, prayers are answered, miracles happen, inner peace in the midst of hard times, etc. etc. over and over and over again. That might not mean much to you but it's enough for me.

Yes, but prayers are also not answered, and miracles don't happen. You can't just label all the fortunate and good stuff god, and forget about all the unanswered prayers and starving children.

I'm sorry, but it isn't enough for me. The cruelty in this world is ample evidence for the lack of a caring god.

And yes I know we " can't know his ways" etc, but I think you can draw a number of conclusions from the state of the world and number one is; there is not someone up there looking out for us.

But it sure keeps coming up and it isn't always the Christian that brings it up first.

It is a Christian site after all.

Seeings I don't know what it is I will not comment, yet. I'm more of a Gap theory believer.

YEC is the full 6 days 6000 years ago special creation and flood shebang. Basically falsified by Christians over 200 years ago.

I don't know about gap theory, I suspect it is a way of not ignoring the completely obvious scientific evidence for an old earth, while clinging to as much of the foundation myth as possible.

 

[FishFace]

It's very interesting, I just wish I was a scientist that I could study it for myself. I'm sorry I don't rely on others so well. I think I could prove it otherwise because I would NOT go along with this limited evidence and I would be looking at it from another perspective. And of course, I would have the Designer helping me.

It sounds to me like you're saying you don't believe the scientists when they describe the features of the chromosomes. Yet you believe them when they give the results of other observations, surely - why don't you believe them?

How did this fushion happen anyway?

You can think of any polymer, including DNA, as a long paper chain. Each paper ring is a single unit of the polymer, called the monomer. In DNA, there are actually two chains with little cross links, like pieces of masking tape, between each ring.
When a cell divides and replicates, it must copy all its genetic material. When it does this, it has to unzip the two "paper chains" of each chromosome and fill in matching rings to create a copy. At any point when the two chains are "unzipped" the masking tape links are flapping around. If, by chance, another unzipped chain wanders too close, it's possible that it will be caught and stuck onto the chain, making one long chain.

OK, this is a very simplified look at things, but hopefully you get the idea. DNA molecules are, essentially, "sticky" and can randomly stick together. It doesn't happen very often, and often such chromosomal abnormalities are fatal. Every once in a while, however, they have no effect at all.

and why?

Pure random chance.

Unless God put it there specifically when he was designing us, but that wouldn't make sense now, would it?

But when God is taken out of the equation you limit your explanation rather than enhance it and find the real truth.

God is out of the equation until such a time as there is good, solid evidence for him - just like any other supernatural entity.

 

[Inan3]

It sounds to me like you're saying you don't believe the scientists when they describe the features of the chromosomes. Yet you believe them when they give the results of other observations, surely - why don't you believe them?

You can think of any polymer, including DNA, as a long paper chain. Each paper ring is a single unit of the polymer, called the monomer. In DNA, there are actually two chains with little cross links, like pieces of masking tape, between each ring.

When a cell divides and replicates, it must copy all its genetic material. When it does this, it has to unzip the two "paper chains" of each chromosome and fill in matching rings to create a copy. At any point when the two chains are "unzipped" the masking tape links are flapping around. If, by chance, another unzipped chain wanders too close, it's possible that it will be caught and stuck onto the chain, making one long chain.

OK, this is a very simplified look at things, but hopefully you get the idea. DNA molecules are, essentially, "sticky" and can randomly stick together. It doesn't happen very often, and often such chromosomal abnormalities are fatal. Every once in a while, however, they have no effect at all.

Pure random chance.

Unless God put it there specifically when he was designing us, but that wouldn't make sense now, would it?

God is out of the equation until such a time as there is good, solid evidence for him - just like any other supernatural entity.

I am not saying that I don't believe the scientists when they describe the features of the chromosomes. I have no reason to disbelieve that. What I disagree with them about is that it is so simple for them to just disregard and dismiss the idea that it could have been designed that way by God.

I believe the Genesis account which states

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

I believe it was purposefully designed that way that each living creature would reproduce "after their kind."

 

[Skaloop]

I believe it was purposefully designed that way that each living creature would reproduce "after their kind."

Would you please provide a definition of 'kind'? Because I've yet to find a Creationist who could. You know, what makes a kind, what makes one animal part of one kind and not another.

 

[FoeHammer]

No, "it's" wasn't a typo. It was lack of knowledge.

Life view … liberal.
Politics … liberal.
Biblical interpretation … liberal.
Post interpretation … Extremely liberal.
Origin of life view - Atheistic evolution.
And a Jerry Springer look-alike.
http://www3.foru.ms/images/customprofilepics/profilepic193654_1.gif
You're not to be taken seriously.

FoeHammer.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am not saying that I don't believe the scientists when they describe the features of the chromosomes. I have no reason to disbelieve that. What I disagree with them about is that it is so simple for them to just disregard and dismiss the idea that it could have been designed that way by God.

Why would God construct a chromosome to make it look like humans and chimps share a common ancestor? In fact, why do we even share 95% of our DNA with chimps? Why do we share 203,000 retroviral insertions at the same exact spot in our genomes? Why are there fossil species that have a mix of human and chimp characteristics in a chronological order that suggests that humans evolved? Why do both humans and chimps have the same broken genes that are broken in the same spots (eg GULO, the vitamin C synthesis gene)? Why do orthologous ERV's among primates fall into a nested hierarchy, the same pattern that the theory of evolution predicts? This is just the tip of the iceberg. There is more evidence if you want it.

My question to you is this. What evidence would convince you that humans and chimps share a common ancestor?

I believe the Genesis account which states . . .

I thought you didn't trust people? So why do you trust anonymous biblical authors when you can't verify a thing they claim? Why do you distrust scientists when you can verify every piece of evidence that they put forth?

I believe it was purposefully designed that way that each living creature would reproduce "after their kind."

Why did God create life in a way that makes it look like they evolved? Why didn't God create species that violate the nested hierarchy, such as bats with feathers, birds with teats, or fish with fur?

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

...
You're not to be taken seriously.

FoeHammer.

Thank you for the very kind compliment.

 

[FishFace]

I am not saying that I don't believe the scientists when they describe the features of the chromosomes. I have no reason to disbelieve that. What I disagree with them about is that it is so simple for them to just disregard and dismiss the idea that it could have been designed that way by God.

But it is simple, that is the point. Remember the question I asked you to have a think about - whether you could find a true explanation of these three patterns we find in human chromosome two.

The astonishing thing is, scientists actually made these predictions - and others (Tiktaalik, Vitamin C pseudogene, etc) before the results were discovered. That is the true test of a theory or explanation - whether it can predict things and be right, without knowing. For example, when Newton looked at things falling to earth, and planets orbiting the sun, he came up with the equation "F = G * m1 * m2 / r²". This theory can predict the orbit of any planet, as long as you know the main masses involved. (usually just the sun and the planet, basically) If Newton's theory was correct, these predictions would turn out to be true - and they were.

In the same way, we know evolution is true because predictions it makes are correct. Your objection that God could have designed it that way is like saying that Newton's theory of Universal Gravitation is wrong because it is God who actually pushes all the planets 'round in their orbits, and he just decided to push them round so that they satisfy the equation.

It would be absolutely silly to believe either of these things, and for the same reason in each case. If it is just God pushing things round how he likes, then we would have no reason to predict that the next thing we see follows the same equation. If it is just God's design, we wouldn't be able to make such astonishing predictions as those re human chromosome 2.

I believe the Genesis account which states

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

I believe it was purposefully designed that way that each living creature would reproduce "after their kind."

This is, in essence, correct. No organism has offspring that are not like the organism itself. This is part of the nested hierarchy of evolution - you are everything that went before you, plus a human. You are a human, a hominid, a primate, a mammal, a chordate, an animal, and a eukaryote. (I've missed out some bits for simplicity.)

The fact that we can see that a fusion of two chimp chromosomes forms precisely the pattern we see in one of our chromosomes show that we share a common ancestor. There's simply no other explanation for it. "God's design" is not an explanation in the same way that "God's design" is not an explanation for planetary orbits.

 

[Inan3]

Would you please provide a definition of 'kind'? Because I've yet to find a Creationist who could. You know, what makes a kind, what makes one animal part of one kind and not another.

Just means species. I'm sure you understand that.

Hebrew word for "kind"

Strongs - H4327
מין
mîyn
meen
From an unused root meaning to portion out; a sort, that is, species: - kind. Compare H4480.

 

[Loudmouth]

Just means species. I'm sure you understand that.

Hebrew word for "kind"

Strongs - H4327
מין
mîyn
meen
From an unused root meaning to portion out; a sort, that is, species: - kind. Compare H4480.

Then we have observed the production of new kinds through evolution.

Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

 

[Skaloop]

Just means species. I'm sure you understand that.

Well, usually, Creationists refer to "bird kind" and "fish kind" and such. Forgive me for lumping you in with them.

Nonetheless, there are observed instances of speciation, which would directly contradict your assertion that kind only produces kind. Because one species (kind) can produce another species (kind).

 

[Inan3]

Why would God construct a chromosome to make it look like humans and chimps share a common ancestor? In fact, why do we even share 95% of our DNA with chimps? Why do we share 203,000 retroviral insertions at the same exact spot in our genomes?

Perhaps you should ask God because it's way over my head. And who is this common ancestor?

Why are there fossil species that have a mix of human and chimp characteristics in a chronological order that suggests that humans evolved?

Where can this be found? Does it have name? Is it real?

Why do both humans and chimps have the same broken genes that are broken in the same spots (eg GULO, the vitamin C synthesis gene)? Why do orthologous ERV's among primates fall into a nested hierarchy, the same pattern that the theory of evolution predicts? This is just the tip of the iceberg. There is more evidence if you want it.

My question to you is this. What evidence would convince you that humans and chimps share a common ancestor?

So who is this common ancestor anyhow? And this means there is no God?

I thought you didn't trust people? So why do you trust anonymous biblical authors when you can't verify a thing they claim? Why do you distrust scientists when you can verify every piece of evidence that they put forth?

I don't trust people but I do trust God to use multiple authors down through the years to bring His Word to us. It has nothing to do with the authors but it does have to do with the Author. Holy men were moved upon by the Holy Ghost and they wrote down what they were inspired to write. If I didn't trust the Words on the pages of the Bible, if I found it to be faulty, if one book didn't agree with another than I would lay it all aside but it does. It works perfectly together from Genesis to Revelation.

The Bible is a spiritual book for the spiritual man it is not a science book although, there is some science in it. It cannot be understood intellectually. I has to be understood spiritually. No one can understand the scriptures unless they are born of the spirit. Communication with God ended in the Garden of Eden. It was not regained until Christ took the sin question out of the way. By believing in the finished work of Christ a man becomes the son of God, born of His spirit by His Word. No evidence is needed before, that is provided after when a person can now see it. In the spirit realm most everything works opposite of the natural.

Why did God create life in a way that makes it look like they evolved? Why didn't God create species that violate the nested hierarchy, such as bats with feathers, birds with teats, or fish with fur?

Because God is God and the Creator can do as He wants.

Rom 9:20 No, but, O man, who are you who replies against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him who formed it, Why have you made me this way?

Isa 29:16 They turn everything upside down. Which is more important, the potter or the clay? Can something you have made say, "You didn't make me"? Or can it say, "You don't know what you are doing"?

Isa 10:15 But the LORD says, "Can an ax claim to be greater than the one who uses it? Is a saw more important than the one who saws with it? A club doesn't lift up a person; a person lifts up a club."

Job 40:8 Are you trying to prove that I am unjust--- to put me in the wrong and yourself in the right?
Job 40:9 Are you as strong as I am? Can your voice thunder as loud as mine?
Job 40:10 If so, stand up in your honor and pride; clothe yourself with majesty and glory.
Job 40:11 Look at those who are proud; pour out your anger and humble them.
Job 40:12 Yes, look at them and bring them down; crush the wicked where they stand.
Job 40:13 Bury them all in the ground; bind them in the world of the dead.
Job 40:14 Then I will be the first to praise you and admit that you won the victory yourself.
Job 40:15 Look at the monster Behemoth; I created him and I created you. He eats grass like a cow,
Job 40:16 but what strength there is in his body, and what power there is in his muscles!
Job 40:17 His tail stands up like a cedar, and the muscles in his legs are strong.
Job 40:18 His bones are as strong as bronze, and his legs are like iron bars.
Job 40:19 The most amazing of all my creatures! Only his Creator can defeat him.
Job 40:20 Grass to feed him grows on the hills where wild beasts play.
Job 40:21 He lies down under the thorn bushes, and hides among the reeds in the swamp.
Job 40:22 The thorn bushes and the willows by the stream give him shelter in their shade.
Job 40:23 He is not afraid of a rushing river; he is calm when the Jordan dashes in his face.
Job 40:24 Who can blind his eyes and capture him? Or who can catch his snout in a trap?

 

[Inan3]

Well, usually, Creationists refer to "bird kind" and "fish kind" and such. Forgive me for lumping you in with them.

Nonetheless, there are observed instances of speciation, which would directly contradict your assertion that kind only produces kind. Because one species (kind) can produce another species (kind).

Could you elaborate on that a little futher? Cause this is one of those things I doubt.

 

[Skaloop]

Could you elaborate on that a little futher? Cause this is one of those things I doubt.

What's to elaborate? I want to know what the definition of 'kind' is. If you define it as 'species' then we have observed changes between kinds. If you define it as per the Bible (bird kind, fish kind) then I would like to know how those classifications are made. Take an ostrich, a bat, and a crow. Into which kinds do they each fit, and why?

 

[Inan3]

Then we have observed the production of new kinds through evolution.

Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

Have you read the material in those sites that you gave me? I think they speak mostly to what I have been saying about "after their kind" than not. Possibly you could point out what you thought proved otherwise. But thank you for the site, I have bookmarked it.