What is the main reason for you to Oppose evolutionary theory?

Willtor · Apr 3, 2006

kenneth558 said:
Every genetic step in evolution from common ancestors of, say, chimps and humans must absolutely have result in a viable organism for evolution to have a snowball's chance. Include giraffes and okapis, elephants and mastodons. Etc.

It does NOT take a molecular biologist to look at the chromosomal differences between any of these organisms and see a dead organism, a dead step, WILL occur somewhere in the transition.

I am so tired of spelling out the details that I will just leave it at that. You'll have to think critically and think for yourself to see the rest of it.

I do see what you're saying, but I don't think it's quite correct. Okay, maybe I don't quite understand. What do you think about the transition between fish and amphibians?

Late_Cretaceous · Apr 3, 2006

You seem overly hostile to me, and unfairly I believe too.

Sorry if I come accross as being hostile, that is not my intent. I do not know you as a person and have no reason to be hostile. I might take exception to some of the things you say, but it is not directed at you presonally.

Possibly, it seems, due to a misunderstanding of philosophy and an exaggerated view of the place of science in the area of knowledge.

I admit to not being very well versed in the subject of philosophy.

If there's one thing I've learned, it's to pick my fights so that I have time to addres them all appropriately. So I directed you to a thread where I have already committed. Evidently, you chose not to follow it and instead claim that I don't like to back up what I say.

This is not a fight, its a debate. I did not comb through that thread to see where it provided support to your individual claims. I should have done so before saying that. I will read through it in relation to this thread.

Your above argument, in relation to the court case, misunderstands me. I don't think that experimental data is the only data that is valid. I'm saying when you move out of the testable, repeatable and observable (yes, I forgot observable - sorry), it moves into the realm of other fields. Such as the field of historians, or of philosophers. I accept data from other fields beyond science.

Well this is where our main disagreement is. I don't see that evolution moves into the field of philosphy. It is strictly scientific.

For example, the area of logic, while employed by scientists, falls squarely into the domain of philosophers. And when logical inconsistencies are found in a court case, someone may be found guilty or innocent based on this. A drawing together of the results from science and history by the laws of logic.

It seems to me that the concept of logic has some place in science (as in to tie together various bits of evidence), but can also be a source of bias and error. It seemed totally illigical that continents can move when plate techtonics was first introduced - and it was this logic induced bias that prevented it from being taken serously for many years. Now of course, everyone accpets plate techonics (continental drift) - especially since it is measured directly using techniques such that incorporate GPS. It also seems illogical that time can pass at different rates depending on where you are - yet GPS satellites carry atomic clocks to adjust for the time dialation they experience (time travels slower here on earth).

It is also philosophy that decides how much evidence is sufficient to render a verdict, not science.

Maybe in court, but not when applied to a scientific theory.

Fact of science: Apes and humans share anthropomorphic qualities
Extrapolation: Apes and humans share a common ancestors

THere is a lot more to it to reach that conclusion. This conclusion would not be taken seriously were there not for eivdence from various fields such as genetics, paleontology, physiology, comparitive anatomy... YOu are talking about textbooks full of information here - none of which contradicts this conclusion.

Fact of science: There are changes in allele frequencies in a population over time
Extrapolation: These changes resulted in life from a simple single celled organism to what we see today

Again, such a conclusion is drawn from piles of evidence from many different fields.

It is these extrapolations which are open to philosophers to interpret. Perhaps then this will seem clearer:

Philosophers can intrpet them all they like. It has no bearing on the validy of the data or the theories build on that data.

I draw the line beyond what is reasonable and verified, and that which is inferrred and seems unreasonable. To do the latter we test such claims with the laws of logic.

Again, just because something is illogical does not mean it is incorrect or unscientific. Think of some of the implications of relativity, quantum mechanics and so forth.

That would only be true if I didn't know anything about evolution.

You so seem to know more about evolution then I first gave you credit for. However, as you already admitted - you reject it on philisophical grounds. I contend that rejecting a scientific theory on philosphy is most unscientific and inappropriate. You obviously disagree.

Which if true, of course, would contradict what you earlier said about the nature of our universe:

If abiogenesis occurred by "magic" then your naturalistic view of science would be invalid.

I never said it did or could occur by magic. I said IF, implying a hypothetical situation. I could say "what would you do IF you lived 2000 years ago" - nobody in their right mind would think I am claiming it is possible.

Do you have an a priori objection to "magic" (aka. God) being the cause of abiogenesis, or are you open to the possibility of supernatural explanations for natural phenomena?

I am NOT open to the idea of magic. It is was a HYPOTHETICAL. I NEVER implied that magic was possible. How about if I say "If I could fly...." It is a fanciful / hypothetical statement.

Do you serously, honestly think that I was suggesting that magic was possible or likely. IT seems to me you are deliberatly twisting my words around in a vain attempt to make me look stupid.

If the latter, it seems to me that you should reject your naturalistic assumptions and be open to the miraculous (such as the resurrection of our Saviour).

Actually I don't make a distinction between micaculous and natural. I don't know why people do.
God created nature. Therefore natural = divine. Nature itself is a miracle.

It's not a question of what God could do, but rather what He has done. In our world, the observable data demonstrates that life never comes from non-life.

Do you have any proof of this.
What is alive and not?

It is possible that you could manufacture amino acids in a laboratory out of the basic elements (nitrogen, oxygen, carbon and hydrogen). YOu could then mix them in a shake and drink them. YOur body would then incorporate them into your muscles and other tissues. Non living matter would then be part of your living body. In spite of that, those chemicals are not alive. YOur DNA is not alive. The phospholipids in your cell membranes are not alive. The calcium in your bones is not alive. Yet as a whole it makes up a living organism.

Do any of the chemical processes that we call life violate the laws of phyics or chemistry? Life is as natural as the air or the water. Therefore life can arise natrually. It is God's will.

And when you get right down to it, you cannot pin down what's alive or not. There is a fuzzy boundry between the two. Lots of "transitionals" if you will - like virus.

Arguably. But that's not the point. Compare humans, or any of the larger living things today to their supposed single celled ancestor. We are more complex than that. And there should be progressive steps that show an increase in complexity on the way to get where we are. So Zzub's statement saying

YOu can find progessivley complex organisms in nature. SIngle celled protists, mutiple celled Volvox (with some rudimentary cell specialization), flatworms, salamanders, humans.

Of course, evolution does allow for more complex creatures to evolve, But evolution is not a "road to complexity".

You can say "evolution means change nothing more" and be correct. But the Darwinian theory of evolution, as described today, requires more. It requires mutations that result

in an increase in complexity, not just a change.

It does not require increasing complexity, although it can and does happen. In some evolutionary lineages increasing complexity is present.

Zzub is saying, I believe, that the observable data shows either a plateau or a degeneration of creatures over time. This process is the inverse of what is requiered by Darwinian evolution.

Acutally, the data supports evolution. Lets take the enzymes necessary for blood clotting. They are mutated copies of digestive enzymes that resulted from transcription errors where they ended up in differnet parts of the genome. There you go - copied and mutated genes for proteins moved to differnt parts of the genome result in am more complex genome with more information. (I am currently reading the book in the link BTW).

One problem that people who believe life came from single celled organisms to where it is today seem to confuse is the difference between what is observed and what is not.

Yeah, because Harvard scientists are THAT stupid.

Natural selection, changes in allele frequencies, mutations - these all occur. Changes do occur. Species do adapt. You can argue for as long as you want for these things and I won't disagree with you - we have observational data to support it. The difference between the Darwinian model of evolution and the Creationist one is a question of direction:

YOu are totally right up until the last statement. Evolutonary theory stipulates that evolution has NO DIRECTION.(except for increasing fitness)

* Darwinian evolution describes an increase in complexity in species over time through the mechanism of genetic mutations

INcreasing complexity CAN happen but it is not necessary. In fact, some organisms can evovle to become less complex like Water Bears.

Darwinist model extrapolates from this mutations that presumably introduced more diversity into the gene pool again, allowing a climb.

Gentetic mutations are routinely studied and even used in microbiology labs.

Incidentally, the Creationist model corresponds to reality, while the Darwinist model extrapolates beyond what we observe.

Quite the opposite.

(As a side note, when I speak of the Darwinist model I refer to the modern versions of it which include genetic mutations as a mechanism to produce diversity. I am well aware that when Darwin proposed his theory that this was not at all known or a part of it.)

So you acknowledge that evolutionary science has grown in the time since Darwin, but deny that it has any validity.

gluadys · Apr 3, 2006

Zzub said:
It is not a rejection of philosophy, I agree, but it seems to be an exaltation of science.

All people are biased. Humanism is a philosophy. Evolution, in a macro-sense, is not a science as it cannot be observed and repeated (have you read the works of Popper and his critique of Freud - it applies to Darwin as well, IMO). It is a philosophy of thought.

Cheers,
|ZZ|

What do you mean by "evolution in a macro-sense"?

I hope you are aware that after learning more about the process of natural selection Popper withdrew his statement about it being a tautology.

gluadys · Apr 3, 2006

Zzub said:
Then you are not one who believes in pure evolution then. Pure evolution states abiogenesis.

Pure evolution makes no statement at all about the origin of life. Evolution is about the origin of species, not about the origin of life.

That life at one point came from non-life.

What else would it come from?

A miracle of what I am not sure, but evolution postulates this is so.

Nope. Evolution says nothing about it.

Speciation has been observed. One species becoming another species has not been observed.

This is self-contradictory. Speciation is, by definition, one species becoming another species. And it has been observed both in nature and in experiments.

In fact, any animal becoming more complex through evolution has NEVER been observed, which means that goo-to-you-via-the-zoo is impossible.

Evolution is not really concerned about complexity. It is a possible but not a necessary outcome of evolution. So is simplification. The true product of evolution is diversity.

However, since complex life forms exist, but have not always existed, it follows that in some evolutionary pathways complexity did occur. Not that they had to, but they did.

And if by evolution you mean a man came from a rock, it is a false, unscientific explanation.

Yes, that is a false unscientific explanation. Evolution describes how life diversified. As far as I know, no rock is alive.

gluadys · Apr 3, 2006

Zzub said:
I will find one. His books are at work though, and I am at home this evening...

In addition to this, evolution still requires an increase in information. Something that has never been observed.

Cheers,
|ZZ|

To observe something like an "increase in information" you first need to define what "information" is, in what units it is measured, and how you would determine whether or not it has increased.

I have yet to see anyone making the "no increase in information" claim provide the parameters by which one could determine that information has or has not increased.

shernren · Apr 3, 2006

In fact, any animal becoming more complex through evolution has NEVER been observed, which means that goo-to-you-via-the-zoo is impossible.

Until you can define and quantify "complexity", there is no way for anyone to prove that evolution makes life more complex. I could easily argue that bacteria are more complex than humans: they get all the requirements of life done on the resources of one cell, whereas humans need gazillions of cells to stay alive, so doesn't that show that evolution has made life less complex instead of more?

Without proper quantification most creationist arguments turn out to be arguments from personal incredulity and sentimentality.

gluadys · Apr 3, 2006

kenneth558 said:
Every genetic step in evolution from common ancestors of, say, chimps and humans must absolutely result in a viable organism for evolution to have a snowball's chance. Include giraffes and okapis, elephants and mastodons. Etc.

It does NOT take a molecular biologist to look at the chromosomal differences between any of these organisms and see a dead organism, a dead step, WILL occur somewhere in the transition.

I am so tired of spelling out the details that I will just leave it at that. You'll have to think critically and think for yourself to see the rest of it.

The "dead step" of a chromosomal or other genetic difference will occur in one member of the population and die with that organism. How does that make the ongoing evolution of the rest of the population impossible?

kenneth558 · Apr 3, 2006

Willtor said:
I do see what you're saying, but I don't think it's quite correct. Okay, maybe I don't quite understand. What do you think about the transition between fish and amphibians?

I have not looked into chromosomes of any fish or amphibians, to my recollection. But we can locate other irreconcilable steps in those animals. The one that is most glaring to me is gendering. You have some fish that change genders during their lifespan based on age. You have some reptiles that are born one gender or the other based on the temperature of their incubation. But most of the animal kingdom acquires their gender at fertilization. It does NOT take a molecular biologist to see the abject impossibility to GRADUALLY change between these gendering methodologies, even with artificial selection!

Think about the relative accuracy of natural selection vs. artificial selection. They are miles apart, agreed? But even with artificial selection, you are hard-pressed to select on the basis of multiple traits simultaneously. Give it a try if you want. With natural selection, it is preposterous to think that more than a single trait can be acted upon by natural selection. Multiply that by how many of those traits result in speciation (the organism can no longer mate with the population he is a member of). Multiple that by other factors that demand huge numbers of trial and error events before getting a successful event, etc, etc. Now, how many generations do you come up with? You come up with millions of generations. NOT millions of years. There are simply not enough years, not enough environmental changes, not enough separation events, etc to account for every trait difference PLUS every chromosome difference between whatever nearest relative you want to look at that has reproductively incompatible genomes. When evolutionists use the term "millions of years" they use it to baffle the shallow minded sheep. You need to think in terms of "generations", not "years". Then analyze step by step what must have had to happen genetically with the timeline and environment.

kenneth558 · Apr 3, 2006

gluadys said:
The "dead step" of a chromosomal or other genetic difference will occur in one member of the population and die with that organism. How does that make the ongoing evolution of the rest of the population impossible?

I actually mean that the next step required by the process is non-viable. Anywhere, it doesn't matter, in the necessary trek from here to there. It only takes a single impossibility in the process to kill it. Like it only takes you one time to die and you're dead.

gluadys · Apr 3, 2006

kenneth558 said:
I actually mean that the next step required by the process is non-viable.

How do you determine that a "next step" is non-viable? Clearly every step taken in the lineage of a living species was viable.

It only takes a single impossibility in the process to kill it. Like it only takes you one time to die and you're dead.

Since all mutations and chromosomal changes occur in individuals, not simultaneously in the species as a whole, I still wonder how this can be. My dying does not render the human race extinct unless I am the sole surviving human.

Late_Cretaceous · Apr 3, 2006

I have not looked into chromosomes of any fish or amphibians, to my recollection. But we can locate other irreconcilable steps in those animals. The one that is most glaring to me is gendering. You have some fish that change genders during their lifespan based on age. You have some reptiles that are born one gender or the other based on the temperature of their incubation. But most of the animal kingdom acquires their gender at fertilization. It does NOT take a molecular biologist to see the abject impossibility to GRADUALLY change between these gendering methodologies, even with artificial selection!

You misunderstand how gender selection happens in the embryo. Since all the information is present in the genome for either male or female all that is required is a "trigger" - or small subset of genes - to cause the organism to develop either as male or female. That "trigger" can be a response to temperature, the lack of a particular gene or presence of a particular gene, or the presence of certain hormones (i.e. bees). In organisms where the physical differences between male and female are not as pronounced that switch can happen even after develpment - well into adult hood. I see no reason why there can't be evolution from one form to another.

gluadys · Apr 3, 2006

kenneth558 said:
It does NOT take a molecular biologist to see the abject impossibility to GRADUALLY change between these gendering methodologies, even with artificial selection!

But maybe it takes a molecular biologist to see how it can happen.

I am not a molecular biologist, so I can't be of any help.

Think about the relative accuracy of natural selection vs. artificial selection. They are miles apart, agreed?

Yes, natural selection is much more efficient. Probably because it does not have a specific goal in mind. It will take any port in a storm.

But even with artificial selection, you are hard-pressed to select on the basis of multiple traits simultaneously. Give it a try if you want.

Yes, this is why artificial selection is less successful than natural selection. Artificial selection is trying to get traits. Natural selection is not aimed at getting specific traits. It is satisfied with survival, and any trait that increases reproductive success will be grabbed.

With natural selection, it is preposterous to think that more than a single trait can be acted upon by natural selection.

Since natural selection is not aimed at getting specific traits, it is actually easier for it to act on multiple traits. Natural selection works on the basis of the overall fitness of an organism and many traits may contribute to or detract from that.

kenneth558 · Apr 3, 2006

Late_Cretaceous said:
You misunderstand how gender selection happens in the embryo.

My cellular biology, molecular biology, organic evolution, genetics, and zoology instructors would disagree with you. You don't realize the vastness of the gap. All the regulatory molecules that are different must change simultaneously to get from one technique to the other. Can't happen. Won't happen.

gluadys, as I said before, I am so tired of detailing this and not connecting. The best advice I can give you is to try your hand at intelligent design. I mean something that will force you to think hard to invent something that works. You will find that engineering/design is far more complex than you think it is. Chance won't work. It takes intelligence. But you'll never know until you try it. I've done electronic design and software design. Chemical engineers understand also. Etc. Then, YOU try to design an artificial selection experiment to evolve a chimp into a human - if it happened in nature, you should be able to reproduce it. But if you are thorough enough, you'll locate myriads of impasses at the chromosomal level that result in only dead organisms.

Now does that make more sense? I've just used different verbage to say what I tried to say before.

rmwilliamsll · Apr 3, 2006

You will find that engineering/design is far more complex than you think it is. Chance won't work. It takes intelligence. But you'll never know until you try it.

GA is already solving problems that human beings have been unable to. in both software and hardware version.

it's not my field so i don't know the websites and papers to point people to, however there are several people here who will.

Willtor · Apr 3, 2006

rmwilliamsll said:
You will find that engineering/design is far more complex than you think it is. Chance won't work. It takes intelligence. But you'll never know until you try it.

GA is already solving problems that human beings have been unable to. in both software and hardware version.

it's not my field so i don't know the websites and papers to point people to, however there are several people here who will.

That would be me. GA's solve NP complete problems all the time. Some of the problems have become so trivial that they are no longer used in their "pure" form but constraints are modified to make it arbitrarily more complex. I've worked with them, personally. One of the guys in my lab evolved SQL queries to fit a particular niche better than the designed ones.

gluadys · Apr 4, 2006

kenneth558 said:
My cellular biology, molecular biology, organic evolution, genetics, and zoology instructors would disagree with you. You don't realize the vastness of the gap. All the regulatory molecules that are different must change simultaneously to get from one technique to the other. Can't happen. Won't happen.

I don't know of any reason why all the regulatory molecules must change simultaneously.

gluadys, as I said before, I am so tired of detailing this and not connecting. The best advice I can give you is to try your hand at intelligent design.

Been there, done that. All I found was incredulity.

I mean something that will force you to think hard to invent something that works. You will find that engineering/design is far more complex than you think it is.

I have observed that people familiar with engineering seem to have more problems dealing with biology than most other groups.

Perhaps the significant gap is between engineering and biology.

But if you are thorough enough, you'll locate myriads of impasses at the chromosomal level that result in only dead organisms.

Which is what you would expect to find. Obviously those are not the ones that were successful. But something fused two chimp/human ancestor chromosomes into a single human chromosome.

The problem with your approach is that you are trying to show that something which did happen can't happen. You are trying to make theory trump fact. But it is totally illogical to claim that something can't happen when it has already happened.

KingZzub · Apr 4, 2006

Or man was created by God.

Rather than spontaneously arose out of chimps.

shinbits · Apr 4, 2006

WHAT IS THE MAIN REASON FOR YOU TO OPPOSE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY?

well, my problem with evolution is all the assumptions it makes, and it's huge dependency on completely random mutations to end up in the gene pool.

And because of this constant mix of random genes, there'd be no way for a population to evolve, because there'd be no way that all the organisms in a population have inherited the same genes that would make them similar enough to even be a population.

That makes it far too unbelievable.

KingZzub · Apr 4, 2006

Great post bro...

And I love the scuba mask...

Brilliant!!!

shernren · Apr 4, 2006

I have observed that people familiar with engineering seem to have more problems dealing with biology than most other groups.

Perhaps the significant gap is between engineering and biology.

Perhaps it's due to the innate human tendency to imagine that God is really, really, really like us. After all engineers are way into designing things. They probably find it harder to conceive any other way to make anything.

Or man was created by God.

Rather than spontaneously arose out of chimps.

You are unjustifiably importing the philosophical constructs of atheistic evolutionism into your assessment of biological evolution, hence your "disagreement on philosophical grounds". Just because evolution caused something doesn't show that God didn't cause it. God works through evolution as well as He works through any other force of nature.

What is the main reason for you to Oppose evolutionary theory?

Your #1 reason to oppose evolutionary theory

It's Bad Science (inspite of what the major universities say)

It leads people away from God (inspite of the majority of TE's here)

It causes immorality / society's breakdown / family breakdown

I am not against it, it's just that I am not convinced of it (my mind is open)

I have always been told to oppose it, and I don't question my opposition

Other reasons

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

&lt;font color=&quot;#880000&quot; &gt;&lt;/font&g

Legend

Legend

Legend

you are not reading this.

Legend

Believer in the Invisible

Believer in the Invisible

Legend

&lt;font color=&quot;#880000&quot; &gt;&lt;/font&g

Legend

Believer in the Invisible

avid reader

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

Legend

Blessed to Be A Blessing

Well-Known Member

Blessed to Be A Blessing

you are not reading this.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

<font color="#880000" ></font&g

<font color="#880000" ></font&g