What are the Weaknesses of Evolution?

NailsII · Aug 26, 2007

Lets face it, ID is just a joke.
There is very little intelligent about the design of life when you look closer.
A good analogy would be to compare Windows XP/Vista to 3.1, the former versions are far superior because they have the benefit of improvement by overhaul, developers have looked at the previous limitations and made improvements. They are built around a totally different platform as well, so previous errors can be totally eradicated.
Life rarely has this luxury, problems tend to be reduced rather than eliminated - pseudogenes being a classic example. They serve an evolutionary function, not a creationist one.
I wonder how much energy is wasted reproducing an uneccessarily large genome?

Inan3 · Aug 26, 2007

FishFace said:
What you have been claiming is that, for some reason, God actually inserted pseudogenes into the genome. This is as ridiculous as saying God is pushing the planets around the sun.

Oh my, Tommy, once again my words are twisted. How does that keep happening? Be nice now. And yes, I'm being "nice", I'm trying to help you all see how you twist everything someone says to make it say what you want it to say. Can you see why I don't trust scientists or evolutionists or atheists? Just a bunch of "nice" twisters of truth. They like to make everyone think they are so smart but they are really little mischievious devils, now, aren't they? Be nice.

Tomk80 · Aug 26, 2007

CACTUSJACKmankin said:
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.

I was reading back through the thread, and this last part is not actually correct. When a group of eagles would split into two different species, they would still both be eagles. One of the consequences of descent with modification is that a species never leaves the group where it started in. The new species of eagle would still belong to the group of 'eagles'. So you would get an 'eagle novellus' and 'eagle originalus'. Both would still belong to the group of eagles.

The same way all eagles still belong to the group of birds, ever since they started splitting of from the first species of birds.

Tomk80 · Aug 26, 2007

Inan3 said:
Oh my, Tommy, once again my words are twisted. How does that keep happening? Be nice now. And yes, I'm being "nice", I'm trying to help you all see how you twist everything someone says to make it say what you want it to say.

What was it that you were trying to say?

Can you see why I don't trust scientists or evolutionists or atheists?

That's an awful lot of people to distrust based on the actions of 5 or 6 people on an anonymous forum.

Just a bunch of "nice" twisters of truth. They like to make everyone think they are so smart but they are really little mischievious devils, now, aren't they? Be nice.

Back at you. Perhaps not at you personally, but I have seen the same behavior from the side of Christians more than once. My suspicion is that there are some ideological barriers that make communication harder. I definitely see no indication that Fishface is twisting your words on purpose. I haven't read back all the way, so perhaps he is. Or perhaps you haven't been so clear or what you said did not specifically state what he said, but would logically lead to it.

Inan3 · Aug 26, 2007

Tomk80 said:
What was it that you were trying to say?

That's an awful lot of people to distrust based on the actions of 5 or 6 people on an anonymous forum.

Back at you. Perhaps not at you personally, but I have seen the same behavior from the side of Christians more than once. My suspicion is that there are some ideological barriers that make communication harder. I definitely see no indication that Fishface is twisting your words on purpose. I haven't read back all the way, so perhaps he is. Or perhaps you haven't been so clear or what you said did not specifically state what he said, but would logically lead to it.

No No let's just stay here with you TommyK, Forget about FishFace. It seems apparent that you're trying to shift the focus to other individuals to take away from the fact that YOU twisted my words to come up with some of your nice mumbo jumbo. Your very good at your manipulative ploys but there are some of us equally as good at spotting them.

I've had enough of you, Tom, Tom.

EnemyPartyII · Aug 26, 2007

Inan3 said:
No No let's just stay here with you TommyK, Forget about FishFace. It seems apparent that you're trying to shift the focus to other individuals to take away from the fact that YOU twisted my words to come up with some of your nice mumbo jumbo. Your very good at your manipulative ploys but there are some of us equally as good at spotting them.

I've had enough of you, Tom, Tom.

do you have any evidence to suggest evolutionary theory is incorrect?

FishFace · Aug 26, 2007

Inan3 said:
Oh my, Tommy, once again my words are twisted. How does that keep happening? Be nice now. And yes, I'm being "nice", I'm trying to help you all see how you twist everything someone says to make it say what you want it to say. Can you see why I don't trust scientists or evolutionists or atheists? Just a bunch of "nice" twisters of truth. They like to make everyone think they are so smart but they are really little mischievious devils, now, aren't they? Be nice.

I'm not Tomk80.

But your words were not twisted - you insist that genetic patterns somehow got there, but not by evolution. The only possibility you hinted at was that God put them there.

What were you saying, if not that?

Tomk80 · Aug 26, 2007

Inan3 said:
No No let's just stay here with you TommyK, Forget about FishFace. It seems apparent that you're trying to shift the focus to other individuals to take away from the fact that YOU twisted my words to come up with some of your nice mumbo jumbo. Your very good at your manipulative ploys but there are some of us equally as good at spotting them.

I've had enough of you, Tom, Tom.

So you actually aren't a very nice person after all. Because this response definitely does not fall under the 'sarcastic humor' category. It's not funny and sarcasm usually has a point, which is also lacking in your post. But I can live with you not being a nice person. Because if that is the attitude you are taking, I can of course ask you what kind of thoughts went through your head when you made the above post, because I am mystified by it. My current guess is none, but perhaps you have an explanation. You see, snide remarks are easy. But then, snide remarks is what fundamentalist Christians do best, isn't it? Claiming to belong to some 'moral' group, taking the 'holier than thou' attitude while they actually are just a bunch of ignorant, uneducated rednecks. See, snide remarks against groups are easy too.

You say "forget Fishface", but I thought his post was what you were talking about. It definitely wasn't me specifically you were talking about in your post. What else were you trying to do? What kind of response were you expecting from me? I, for one, am completely mystified. But then, I had that with earlier posts of yours where I couldn't figure out what you were trying to say.

So I asked. But instead of responses, I got snide remarks. I pointed this out and got an apology, but apparently this wasn't really sincere, since the snide remarks continued unabated anyway. But then I should have remembered that I'm from the devil anyway, so sincerity doesn't have to be practiced towards me by so-called "moral" Christians, right? (oops, was that a snide remark again? Perhaps even some sarcastic humor? Who knows).

But perhaps my inability to understand you isn't due to our differences in opinion about a variety of subjects. Perhaps my inability to understand you is because you aren't very clear in what you want to say. It is definitely a different explanation for why you think others 'twist' your words and it would seem to fit here.

Inan3 · Aug 26, 2007

EnemyPartyII said:
do you have any evidence to suggest evolutionary theory is incorrect?

Rapid Petrifaction

Rapid Formation of Layers & Coal

Articulated fossils

40 year old Speleotherms

Fish eating fish fossil

Fossilized worms

ripple formations in sedimentary rock

Layers that are supposed to be separated by millions of years, are found interbedded.

Time differences in fossils and layers

"junk" DNA no longer Junk DNA

and more

Wiccan_Child · Aug 26, 2007

Inan3 said:
Rapid Petrifaction

Rapid Formation of Layers & Coal

Articulated fossils

40 year old Speleotherms

Fish eating fish fossil

Fossilized worms

ripple formations in sedimentary rock

Layers that are supposed to be separated by millions of years, are found interbedded.

Time differences in fossils and layers

"junk" DNA no longer Junk DNA

and more

You're going to have to elaborate on these. Shouting phrases isn't the most concise of arguments.

Inan3 · Aug 26, 2007

Tomk80 said:
So you actually aren't a very nice person after all. Because this response definitely does not fall under the 'sarcastic humor' category. It's not funny and sarcasm usually has a point, which is also lacking in your post. But I can live with you not being a nice person. Because if that is the attitude you are taking, I can of course ask you what kind of thoughts went through your head when you made the above post, because I am mystified by it. My current guess is none, but perhaps you have an explanation. You see, snide remarks are easy. But then, snide remarks is what fundamentalist Christians do best, isn't it? Claiming to belong to some 'moral' group, taking the 'holier than thou' attitude while they actually are just a bunch of ignorant, uneducated rednecks. See, snide remarks against groups are easy too.

You say "forget Fishface", but I thought his post was what you were talking about. It definitely wasn't me specifically you were talking about in your post. What else were you trying to do? What kind of response were you expecting from me? I, for one, am completely mystified. But then, I had that with earlier posts of yours where I couldn't figure out what you were trying to say.

So I asked. But instead of responses, I got snide remarks. I pointed this out and got an apology, but apparently this wasn't really sincere, since the snide remarks continued unabated anyway. But then I should have remembered that I'm from the devil anyway, so sincerity doesn't have to be practiced towards me by so-called "moral" Christians, right? (oops, was that a snide remark again? Perhaps even some sarcastic humor? Who knows).

But perhaps my inability to understand you isn't due to our differences in opinion about a variety of subjects. Perhaps my inability to understand you is because you aren't very clear in what you want to say. It is definitely a different explanation for why you think others 'twist' your words and it would seem to fit here.

I will admit I made a mistake and thought FishFace was you. I've got so many people I'm answering I got it mixed up some how. I am sorry about that. I thought you were being one way one time and then coming at me differently another time, when in fact it was FishFace. For that I apologize again.

I went back and looked at FishFace's original comment and then my comment to him and I can see how he "misunderstood" not "twisted" what I was trying to say.

What I wanted to get across was that God created all things that planetary orbits and pseudogenes were all His creation. Not that I think His original design was pseudogenes and quite frankly I didn't know what they were until I just looked them up. Another error on my part which I apologize for to you both.

Inan3 · Aug 26, 2007

FishFace said:
I'm not Tomk80.

But your words were not twisted - you insist that genetic patterns somehow got there, but not by evolution. The only possibility you hinted at was that God put them there.

What were you saying, if not that?

FishFace I owe you an apology also. See my post to TomK #371

Inan3 · Aug 26, 2007

Wiccan_Child said:
You're going to have to elaborate on these. Shouting phrases isn't the most concise of arguments.

I am not going to elaborate on these because I do not have enough knowledge about them to be able to do that but I have been learning online about things on both sides of this issue, as fast as I can (in between posting here) and I will continue to learn. You will have to look them up for yourself as I have been doing. I realize that it isn't the most concise argument but it is what I have for now. The more I do learn the more I realize that evolution does not always add up. I am still convinced of Creation as God's divine design. It is too wonderful and complex to just "happen" from nothing.

The Bellman · Aug 26, 2007

Inan3 said:
I am not going to elaborate on these because I do not have enough knowledge about them to be able to do that

So you posted a bunch of phrases which you claim suggest evolutionary theory is incorrect. Now you admit you don't have enough knowledge to say why these things suggest evolutionary theory is incorrect.

Thanks for admitting you, basically, just pasted a list of things some creationist website said falsified evolutionary theory without understanding any of them or knowing why or how they do so.

Honesty has never been creationists' strong point.

lemmings · Aug 26, 2007

Inan3 said:
Rapid Petrifaction

Rapid Formation of Layers & Coal

Articulated fossils

40 year old Speleotherms

Fish eating fish fossil

Fossilized worms

ripple formations in sedimentary rock

Layers that are supposed to be separated by millions of years, are found interbedded.

Time differences in fossils and layers

"junk" DNA no longer Junk DNA

and more

“Rapid Petrifaction” – Petrifcation is just anouther form of fossilization. Fossils are evidence for evolution, but it is irrelevent if a fossil formed over a week rather than a year so long that it can be properly dated.

“Rapid Formation of Layers & Coal” – Once again, the rate of formation is irrelivent to evolutionary biology.

“Articulated fossils” – Articulated fossils are just those that remain intact. It means that the organism was rapidly coverd preventing scavangers from finding it and removing it’s bones and other hard parts.

“40 year old Speleothems” – And? Do you really expect a room under the Washington Monument will exibit the same conditions as a cave hundreds, if not thousands of feet underground?

“Fish eating fish fossil” – You mean I can’t die when I am eating something! What if a mudslide covers both me and my food?

“Fossilized worms” – Worms don’t fossilize? You mean that if I coverd a worm in a sediment, and this sediment where to solidify before the worm decayed, it won’t leave an imprint?

“ripple formations in sedimentary rock” – Evolution is a BIOLOGICAL Theory, not Geology.

“Interbedded layers” – Metamorphism? I don’t know, not a geologists. But the Theory of Evolution is also not a geological theory.

“Time differences in fossils and layers” – All of the examples of this that I am aware of place the fossil in a geological layer yougner than itself. This can be explained by some form of erosion such as a river that freed a fossil from it’s origionial layer and then transported it to a difrent location where the layer had not been eroded away.
“"junk" DNA no longer Junk DNA” – Junk DNA still exists. We may have found hypothetical uses for some junk DNA, however the removal ofjunk DNA has shown no visible effect in some species.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journa...l;jsessionid=E3AF9409CEC9663ED57622E0D1E46E5A

EnemyPartyII · Aug 27, 2007

Inan3 said:
Rapid Petrifaction

Rapid Formation of Layers & Coal

Articulated fossils

40 year old Speleotherms

Fish eating fish fossil

Fossilized worms

ripple formations in sedimentary rock

Layers that are supposed to be separated by millions of years, are found interbedded.

Time differences in fossils and layers

"junk" DNA no longer Junk DNA

and more

How do these provide evidence egainst evolutionary theory? I see nothing here, please elaborate?

EnemyPartyII · Aug 27, 2007

Inan3 said:
I am not going to elaborate on these because I do not have enough knowledge about them to be able to do that but I have been learning online about things on both sides of this issue, as fast as I can (in between posting here) and I will continue to learn. You will have to look them up for yourself as I have been doing. I realize that it isn't the most concise argument but it is what I have for now. The more I do learn the more I realize that evolution does not always add up. I am still convinced of Creation as God's divine design. It is too wonderful and complex to just "happen" from nothing.

Ah, I see... so, you decided Creation is correct BEFORE looking at the evidence, and are now trying to find evidence to support your prior assumptions. I see.

You are, of course, aware that evolution does not require a belief that anything "just "happen" from nothing."

Tomk80 · Aug 27, 2007

lemmings said:
Rapid Petrifaction Petrifcation is just anouther form of fossilization. Fossils are evidence for evolution, but it is irrelevent if a fossil formed over a week rather than a year so long that it can be properly dated.

This is not entirely correct, Lemmings. Petrification is not the same as fossilization. Fossilization happens over millions of years, while petrification can happen quite quickly. This is because in fossilization all the carbon parts of the fossilized organism are exchanged for minerals, something which doesn't happen with petrification.

NailsII · Aug 27, 2007

Ok, please allow me to disassemble the junk DNA conspiracy.

Junk DNA is any length of code not believed to have an active protein which is used for any known function in an organism.
It can be basically split into three groups - repeated sequences, where small amounts of code have been copied repeatedly; psuedogenes, where an entire gene has been copied or viral insertions.
Repeated sequences are just mistakes that happen in any copting system. Many would be weeded out by natural selection but as we lack a definate internal system to remove them, they persist.
A possible evolutionary advantage of them is as a 'parking space' for viral DNA insertion - that is, any viral codes inserted in these areas would have no functionality as they would not be transcribed.
pseudogenes are copies of functional genes that are often no longer functional.
They often 'decay' by random mutation and are rarely transcribed and can often be a source of new genes seamingly out of nowhere - eg myoglobin and haemoglobin.
Viral insertions are evidence of an evolutionary strugle with our friends the intracellular parasites, it is interesting that we share many viral insertions with our primate cousins.

There is not one shread of evidence in DNA to suggest a young earth or a divine creator - in fact, genetic evidence directly contradicts these assertions.

Tomk80 · Aug 27, 2007

Inan3 said:
I will admit I made a mistake and thought FishFace was you. I've got so many people I'm answering I got it mixed up some how. I am sorry about that. I thought you were being one way one time and then coming at me differently another time, when in fact it was FishFace. For that I apologize again.

I went back and looked at FishFace's original comment and then my comment to him and I can see how he "misunderstood" not "twisted" what I was trying to say.

What I wanted to get across was that God created all things that planetary orbits and pseudogenes were all His creation. Not that I think His original design was pseudogenes and quite frankly I didn't know what they were until I just looked them up. Another error on my part which I apologize for to you both.

Apologies accepted.

What are the Weaknesses of Evolution?

Life-long student of biological science

Veteran Saint

Titleless

Titleless

Veteran Saint

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Titleless

Veteran Saint

Contributor

Veteran Saint

Veteran Saint

Veteran Saint

The Bellman

Guest

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Titleless

Life-long student of biological science

Titleless

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency