What are the Weaknesses of Evolution?

[Inan3]

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?

You know a bat isn't a bird. It's not of the same species.

 

[Skaloop]

You know a bat isn't a bird. It's not of the same species.

Yeah, I know that. But apparently, the Bible doesn't:

[SIZE=+1][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=-0]Lev. 11:13, 19 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]And you said 'kind' was 'species'. So if we see one species become another, does that not violate your assertion that kind only produces kind?

 

[Inan3]

Yeah, I know that. But apparently, the Bible doesn't:

[SIZE=+1][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=-0]Lev. 11:13, 19 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]And you said 'kind' was 'species'. So if we see one species become another, does that not violate your assertion that kind only produces kind?

Well I have learned something tonight. I always thought fowls meant birds only. I can see hear it means bats, too. And the Hebrew word also includes flying insects and flying creatures.

Hebrew Word for fowls
H5775
עוף
‛ôph
BDB Definition:
1) flying creatures, fowl, insects, birds
1a) fowl, birds
1b) winged insects
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H5774
Same Word by TWOT Number: 1582a

 

[Inan3]

Yeah, I know that. But apparently, the Bible doesn't:

[SIZE=+1][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=-0]Lev. 11:13, 19 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]And you said 'kind' was 'species'. So if we see one species become another, does that not violate your assertion that kind only produces kind?

Oh forgot! No violation here. Eagles always have eagle offspring and bats always have bat offsprings right on down the line.

 

[Skaloop]

Well I have learned something tonight. I always thought fowls meant birds only. I can see hear it means bats, too. And the Hebrew word also includes flying insects and flying creatures.

Only birds are fowl. Bats are not fowl. If you think they are, please provide a definition of 'fowl' that includes bats. Secondly, birds, bats, insects, and flying creatures are not at all the same species. Therefore, 'kind' cannot mean species.

 

[Skaloop]

Oh forgot! No violation here. Eagles always have eagle offspring and bats always have bat offsprings right on down the line.

'Eagle' and 'bat' are not species. Yes, eagles will always have eagles, but before eagles existed, something that was not an eagle led to an eagle. That's the heart of the nested hierarchy. Descent with modification. Eagles will produce eagles, but they will eventually be a different species of eagle.

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

When doing science, it's simple for scientists to dismiss creationism because it's not science. Supernatural creation via magic makes no predictions, can't be tested, explains nothing, and introduces a near infinite amount of complexity with absolutely no benefit. It simply doesn't add anything to scientific theories to add "because god did it that way" on the end of every explanation.

That doesn't mean that scientists can't have religious beliefs or have faith that god is working as part of everything around them. It's just that "F=ma" is science, while "F=ms because god did it" isn't.

 

[FishFace]

Perhaps you should ask God because it's way over my head.

It's not over ours - the answer is simple. We evolved from a common ancestor shared with chimps.

And who is this common ancestor?

Since we can't do genome sequencing on dead things, we have no way of knowing. Actually, at this point I'm not sure whether a fossil of the human/chimp LCA has been found, but I'm not a biologist.

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

http://www.accessexcellence.org/BF/bf02/klein/slides/PhyloftheHom.gif

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

No, this means evolution is true.

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 Resurrection Puzzle

For people who think the Bible is perfectly self-consistent. Anyway, I don't really want to talk about that - but you should have a read and a think, anyway.
How do you know that the Bible was written by God? How do you know that, and how, at the same time, do you know that the Qu'Ran wasn't dictated to Mohammed by Gabriel?

 

[Loudmouth]

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

It's a very simple concept. Anyone familiar with family trees understands this concept. You and your cousins share a recent common ancestor, your grandparents. Humans and chimps are also cousins and they sare a common ancestor who lived 5-7 billion years ago. I really don't need to ask a deity anything about it. It's written in our DNA.

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

They do have names. Here are a few:

Australopithecus afarensis
Homo habilis
Homo ergaster
Homo erectus
Homo heidelbergensis

The species on top is very chimp like but has a very human looking pelvis and lower body. As you go down the list each species looks less and less chimp like and more and more human like.

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

There is no agreement on which species represents the common ancestor between chimps and humans. However, the features found in our genomes (eg chromosome 2 and orthologous ERV's) very strongly suggests that we do share a common ancestor. It is no different than modern day genetic testing which can reveal paternity or relatedness between humans.

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.

Being internally consistent does not guarantee accuracy outside of the Bible. I could make a fictional story self consistent, but it is still a fictional story. When we compare reality to a literal Genesis it doesn't fit. It isn't consistent. So why do you accept the Bible, or at least a literal interpretation of Genesis, in light of these inconsistencies? It would seem to me that if Genesis is meant to be interpretted literally it was not inspired by the creator of this universe. If I told you I built your computer and my description of it's internal components was completely wrong would you actually believe that I made your computer? If no, then why accept Genesis as the inspired word and literal historical account of the Creator of the Universe if the description is all wrong?

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.

That's fine, but what the problem that arises (IMHO) is when this supposed spiritual understanding directly contradicts the objective reality that we can all observe.

Communication with God ended in the Garden of Eden. It was not regained until Christ took the sin question out of the way.

Was the entire OT written in the Garden of Eden? If not, then it was not communicated to the biblical authors from God.

No evidence is needed before, that is provided after when a person can now see it.

How convenient.

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

Then this sets up a rather large problem. God knew that man would one day discover the theory of evolution. God also knew that the fundamental prediction of that theory would be a nested hierarchy. If God can create in any way he sees fit then God must have chosen to create life so that it fit into a nested hierarchy. This means that God purposely created life so that we would think it evolved.

Do you admit that a nested hierarchy is not what one would expect if life were created? After all, why would God reserve fur only for those animals with three middle ear bones? Does that make any sense to you? Why not give ostriches fur, for example?

 

[Inan3]

The Resurrection Puzzle[/URL]

For people who think the Bible is perfectly self-consistent. Anyway, I don't really want to talk about that - but you should have a read and a think, anyway.

Firstly , not only have I already looked at these scriptures and compared them for myself, but there have also been many others who have done the same. Scientists are not the only ones who go through a process of falsifying and proving things BUT...unlike the person who did this on this site, we do it with a different frame of mind. Although, I do applaud him for his effort, I immediately found that he made false statements and formed erroneous conclusions. These conclusions show his obvious bias. But that does seem to be a common trait within your ranks.

I have not as yet finished the article but I plan to print it out and look it over and will comment on it further at a later time.
But don't get your hopes up about me deconverting.

 

[NailsII]

Its like talking to a brick wall, really.
Don't you people understand that we are not created perfectly in god's image, we have many flaws that we share with our genetic cousins; genes that could be benificial but no longer work (vit C or multiple redundant haemoglobin genes, for example).
But these errors fit quite nicely wiht evolution by natural selection - so which theory is more likely to be true?
genesis is just a story, nothing more.
It is no more true than jason and the argonaughts.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Oh forgot! No violation here. Eagles always have eagle offspring and bats always have bat offsprings right on down the line.

Individuals do not evolve, populations do.
A way to look at speciation is taking an analogy from linguistic evolution. English derives from an older form of German. how did the language change? somebody didnt just decide to start speaking english. As the populations were isolated colloquialisims and local slang changed the language gradually. Every generation could communicate effectively with all then-current generations but the degree at which current generations would be able to communicate with generations further removed breaks down. This is why you may have considerable difficulty understanding the language of the forefathers and certainly have difficulty understanding Shakespeare. This is an almost perfect analogue to the kind of reproductive isolation that occurs in speciation. every generation can reproduce with current generations but that breaks down the further you go back. And as the populations are isolated they change so much that the current populations within each region can no longer communicate. i.e. we cant understand german. isolated species change so much that they can no longer breed.

To summarize, an eagle will never give birth to a non-eagle. but a population of eagles through isolation can become so different from other eagles that they arent eagles anymore.

 

[DoubtingThomas29]

Evolution is a fact it really happened. The only evidence for it that is lacking is witnesses because it happened over such a long period of time, and you can't see biological evolution in a hundred years time in the Human race.

I feel that as a whole the human race on average is getting smarter, however our politicans are getting dumber for one reason or another.

But about evolution, maybe one day all humans will be able to get Ph.D's for instance?

You see nothing stays the same over time, things change and do not stay the same.

You can look at a tree in the summer time in a part of the country that has seasons and it will have leaves on it, but by December the leaves have fallen off. That tree lost it's leaves oveer time, it changed how it looked.

If you could watch the Human race first get together breaking away from the Cro Magna people you would see all kinds of changes over the two hundred thousand years the human race has been in existance on the Earth. I leave it to your imagination what the first humans must have been like, but I am telling you they were totally different than us, but those were our ancestors. For example of how different they were, it wasn't until 50,000 years ago that everybody could understand language. This means for for about on fifty thousand years, not everybody could understand language. Just imagine what that would be like, they are just like an animal walking around who can swing a club and help burn down a jungle when directed to do so carefully. Our early ancestors did use fire to scare away animals and tame the wild that was how they would get the bugs to leave them alone too. They could see over tall grass and see predators, and then throw a torch at an animal in dry grass to get it to run away.

It took a long time to get as smart as we are, we have tons of cool genes in our gene pool, just look at wha scientists can invent now adays, all the nifty inventions, that takes some serious genes to be able to understand like physics and computer science. Some of these scientists are way smarter than I'll ever be that is for sure, and some absolutely know evolution happened, and still believe in God.

The only thing about evolution is that it clearly shows that when supposedly Adam and Eve left the garden of eden that wasn't the first time nature started to die, which totall contradicts, catholicism and the old protestant religions. Either way modern day christianity cannot fully explain why things die, while using Genesis and then saying Jesus makes you immortal.

Which wouldn't you say it is a little odd to say Jesus died for you, so you would have eternal life, but yet things in nature including human beings still die?

Why do people die, if Jesus died, shouldnt that have stopped nature from making it's unmarked grave for every living thing?

Did he not do it right the first time is that why he has to come back and do it again?

 

[FishFace]

Firstly , not only have I already looked at these scriptures and compared them for myself, but there have also been many others who have done the same. Scientists are not the only ones who go through a process of falsifying and proving things BUT...unlike the person who did this on this site, we do it with a different frame of mind.

You will find that the frame of mind is, "The Bible is correct, so how can we cram these clearly contradictory statements together so they just about cohere... if you look at them sideways, in poor light."

Although, I do applaud him for his effort, I immediately found that he made false statements and formed erroneous conclusions. These conclusions show his obvious bias. But that does seem to be a common trait within your ranks.

What you think is bias is almost certainly just the fact that, if you get a bunch of atheists you will, probably, have a bunch of people who... don't believe in God.

I have not as yet finished the article but I plan to print it out and look it over and will comment on it further at a later time.
But don't get your hopes up about me deconverting.

What? You wouldn't deconvert. You might realise how loopy it is to believe in a literal Bible. There are plenty more, by the way.

 

[Inan3]

You will find that the frame of mind is, "The Bible is correct, so how can we cram these clearly contradictory statements together so they just about cohere... if you look at them sideways, in poor light."

What you think is bias is almost certainly just the fact that, if you get a bunch of atheists you will, probably, have a bunch of people who... don't believe in God.

What? You wouldn't deconvert. You might realise how loopy it is to believe in a literal Bible. There are plenty more, by the way.

No, but I want to thank you for all the information that you have given me because as I have looked into it I can see that there really is nothing to support the "evolutionism" theory. It is inconclusive just a lot of loose ends with suppositions of what THEY think is the "best" answer. Which of course, is all relative.

I'll check in every now and then and see how the boys in the nested hierarchy are doing. As Tarzan the ape man would say as he swings out of sight.....

Ah a Ah a Ah a Ahhhhhhh! And to all a good night!

 

[ranmaonehalf]

Its like talking to a brick wall, really.
Don't you people understand that we are not created perfectly in god's image, we have many flaws that we share with our genetic cousins; genes that could be benificial but no longer work (vit C or multiple redundant haemoglobin genes, for example).
But these errors fit quite nicely wiht evolution by natural selection - so which theory is more likely to be true?
genesis is just a story, nothing more.
It is no more true than jason and the argonaughts.

hey now i know jason and the argo is true. I saw him fighting skeletons on tv and that was way before CG animation so they have to be real.....

 

[FishFace]

No, but I want to thank you for all the information that you have given me because as I have looked into it I can see that there really is nothing to support the "evolutionism" theory. It is inconclusive just a lot of loose ends with suppositions of what THEY think is the "best" answer. Which of course, is all relative.

But you still can't explain the nested hierarchy, or pseudogenes, or human chromosome 2, can you?

You can say "goddidit," but as I've said - that's not an explanation, it's a get-out.

The only explanation we have for these "loose ends" as you call them, is one big knot-tying machine called evolution.

 

[Inan3]

But you still can't explain the nested hierarchy, or pseudogenes, or human chromosome 2, can you?

You can say "goddidit," but as I've said - that's not an explanation, it's a get-out.

The only explanation we have for these "loose ends" as you call them, is one big knot-tying machine called evolution.

And NEITHER can you! So once again it comes down to the difference of faith.

 

[MoonLancer]

I see so thats why creations try to tear down science, they think they win on a draw. It seems this is also the case on a large scale.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No, but I want to thank you for all the information that you have given me because as I have looked into it I can see that there really is nothing to support the "evolutionism" theory. It is inconclusive just a lot of loose ends with suppositions of what THEY think is the "best" answer. Which of course, is all relative.

Don't make empty claims. Tell us exactly what these 'loose ends' are, and how they show there is no 'support' for the theory of evolution.
And on the notion of support, this article has oodles of evidence. Oodles:

• 1 Evidence from paleontology
  • 1.1 Fossil records
    • 1.1.1 Extent of the Fossil Record
  • 1.2 Evolution of the horse
  • 1.3 Limitations
• 2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
  • 2.1 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
    • 2.1.1 Pentadactyl limb
    • 2.1.2 Insect mouthparts
    • 2.1.3 Other Arthropod Appendages
  • 2.2 Analogous structures and convergent evolution
  • 2.3 Vestigial organs
• 3 Evidence from geographical distribution
  • 3.1 Continental distribution
  • 3.2 Explanation
  • 3.3 Evidence for migration and isolation
  • 3.4 Continental drift
  • 3.5 Oceanic island distribution
• 4 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
  • 4.1 Evolution of widely distributed proteins and molecules
  • 4.2 Out of Africa hypothesis of human evolution
  • 4.3 External link
• 5 Evidence from antibiotic and pesticide resistance
• 6 Evidence from studies of complex iteration
• 7 Evidence from speciation
  • 7.1 Hawthorn fly

Gods bless Wikipedia