Why do you reject evolution

[Incariol]

Evolution has never been confirmed on a macro level. Micro I am cool with. Breeds and versions of a species is micro evolution. Like Windows XP vs. Windows 7. Practically the same system, just different looks. Still Windows. But macro evolution has never been confirmed, and still continues to be contradicted(or at least put into serious questioning).

This is actually incorrect.

Evolution also is not some universal fact, it is a theory, and I wouldn't even call it that.

You apparently don't understand what a scientific theory is. Germs causing diseases is a theory. Gravity is a theory. Evolution is a theory. All three are facts.

I would say hypothesis. Show me the empircal data, the observations of it happening, and the experiments that have been done to prove evolution. The answer is: there is none.

Wrong. Examples of evolution

The problem with Darwin's original hypothesis was his aim. He called it the "origin of species". This begs for a beginning, something never given by evolutionists. Darwin's original hypothesis was the "changing of one animal species to another through DNA modification". This hypothesis has been proven wrong due to the gene pool or biological laws like,"Like species produce like beings."

That isn't a "law", you literally just made that up. Darwin's hypothesis is correct.

A hypothesis, until proven, cannot be taken seriously and make such smart individuals in the human race abandon the laws and truth set forth by God.

That has nothing to do with science.

 

[Girder of Loins]

This is actually incorrect.



You apparently don't understand what a scientific theory is. Germs causing diseases is a theory. Gravity is a theory. Evolution is a theory. All three are facts.



Wrong. Examples of evolution



That isn't a "law", you literally just made that up. Darwin's hypothesis is correct.



That has nothing to do with science.

Why am I incorrect?

No, you don't understand. Theory means,"A hypothesis tested repeatedly and proven true by multiple experiments." A fact is a truth claim, something science cannot make. A Scientific fact, however, is something that can be oroven wrong, like earth being the center of the galaxy. Or that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. Old scientific facts that have been disproven.

Examples shown were of microevolution, the changing of a species into various form of it. Horse breeds, for example. You have Arabs, Anglo-Arabs, Quarter Horses, Paliminoes, Drafts, etc... All horses, they just look different.

Its called the law of biogenesis. I merely paraphrased. Look it up, I did not "literally just made that up." as you say.

It has everything to do with science. Science discovers, right? But what does it discover? Discovering also implies a previous burying of the truth. Wether natural causes or supernatural causes buried the truth is forefront. I have thought long and hard about Christianity and other worldviews, and Christianity is the onl one that makes logical sense. I can describe each worldview I have studied(in their most pure forms, not little subparts of each one) if you want, but don't expect it quickly. It would take time to put all the information down.

 

[Incariol]

Why am I incorrect?

Because we have observed so-called "macroevolution".

No, you don't understand.

I work in science. I'm pretty sure I get it, thanks.

Examples shown were of microevolution, the changing of a species into various form of it. Horse breeds, for example. You have Arabs, Anglo-Arabs, Quarter Horses, Paliminoes, Drafts, etc... All horses, they just look different.

Its called the law of biogenesis. I merely paraphrased. Look it up, I did not "literally just made that up." as you say.

And it's wrong. And? Some More Observed Speciation Events

It has everything to do with science. Science discovers, right? But what does it discover? Discovering also implies a previous burying of the truth.

So when Pythagoras discovered and formulated the Pythagorean Theorem, it had been concealed that A^2+B^2=C^2

 

[chris4243]

Evolution has never been confirmed on a macro level. Micro I am cool with. Breeds and versions of a species is micro evolution. Like Windows XP vs. Windows 7. Practically the same system, just different looks.

Macroevolution is no different, only taken further. Everything we once were, we still are only in a different form. We're still vertebrates, mammals, and primates, to name a few.

Still Windows. But macro evolution has never been confirmed, and still continues to be contradicted(or at least put into serious questioning). Evolution also is not some universal fact, it is a theory, and I wouldn't even call it that. I would say hypothesis. Show me the empircal data, the observations of it happening, and the experiments that have been done to prove evolution. The answer is: there is none.

It's littered all over the fossil record, the current distribution of species, our DNA -- everything that holds a long enough record of the past supports both evolution and the old age of the earth and universe.

The problem with Darwin's original hypothesis was his aim. He called it the "origin of species". This begs for a beginning, something never given by evolutionists.

That is not a problem for evolution, it just means you don't know where the first life came from.

Darwin's original hypothesis was the "changing of one animal species to another through DNA modification".

Just shows you don't know much history of science. Darwin didn't know about DNA.

This hypothesis has been proven wrong due to the gene pool or biological laws like,"Like species produce like beings." A hypothesis, until proven, cannot be taken seriously and make such smart individuals in the human race abandon the laws and truth set forth by God.

Evolution is a theory of like produces like -- but not a perfect copy. And some of the offspring are better at surviving than others. That, in a nutshell, is the theory of evolution.

 

[Girder of Loins]

To whom it may concern:
My problem with macroevolution is the non-simplicity of it. Not in terms of,"I can't wrap my head around it so its false," but in the sense of how much it would take. The chances of random mutations occuring perfectly along the mRNA strand that would give another species is highly unlikely. But there is another point to this. Another being that is compatible with it would have to be produced by the same mRNA strands. So you look not only to the first one being mutated, but to another one being made. Not to mention the fact the mother probably would reject the newborn. While there are cases of different animal species taking care of other animal species, the probability of this happening every time a new species is created barely exists if at all. I'm not saying macroevolution isn't possible, but the chances of it happening is entirely ludicrous at best. It is insanity. I'm not calling you guys insane, but the idea is.

 

[DannyX18]

So let me get this strait:

Instead of god making his message clear he uses metaphores along with a complete absence of evidence for anything that he does. So if you should not take the bible literally then who is to say it isnt a teaching made by god at all but just a bunch of stories that can be used to guide our lives. Everyones interpretation of the bible is different so how do we know we are praising the same god anyway? Others in fact might say that genesis is entirely literal while others might think its entirely figurative. There is a big difference between something that is fact or fiction, fact is strait forward answer while fiction has many different answers depending on who the reader is.

Im going to go with theories that have actual evidence and proof behind them and i have a hard time putting my faith in anything that cant be proved.

""It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent theist & an evolutionist" - Charles Darwin

I know you wish all Christians would be fundamentalist young earth creationists but it's not the case

 

[Incariol]

To whom it may concern:
My problem with macroevolution is the non-simplicity of it. Not in terms of,"I can't wrap my head around it so its false," but in the sense of how much it would take. The chances of random mutations occuring perfectly along the mRNA strand that would give another species is highly unlikely. But there is another point to this. Another being that is compatible with it would have to be produced by the same mRNA strands. So you look not only to the first one being mutated, but to another one being made. Not to mention the fact the mother probably would reject the newborn. While there are cases of different animal species taking care of other animal species, the probability of this happening every time a new species is created barely exists if at all. I'm not saying macroevolution isn't possible, but the chances of it happening is entirely ludicrous at best. It is insanity. I'm not calling you guys insane, but the idea is.

Because the idea you just described isn't evolution. Populations evolve, not individuals. Change is gradual, occurring over generations, not all at once.

 

[chris4243]

To whom it may concern:
My problem with macroevolution is the non-simplicity of it. Not in terms of,"I can't wrap my head around it so its false," but in the sense of how much it would take.

Evolution is much simpler than design, since it works by extremely simple rules. Imperfect copy plus survival of the fitter copies = evolution.

The chances of random mutations occuring perfectly along the mRNA strand that would give another species is highly unlikely. But there is another point to this. Another being that is compatible with it would have to be produced by the same mRNA strands. So you look not only to the first one being mutated, but to another one being made. Not to mention the fact the mother probably would reject the newborn. While there are cases of different animal species taking care of other animal species, the probability of this happening every time a new species is created barely exists if at all. I'm not saying macroevolution isn't possible, but the chances of it happening is entirely ludicrous at best. It is insanity. I'm not calling you guys insane, but the idea is.

And I'm calling you uneducated about the theory you think you're denouncing but aren't. You say you denounce evolution, but what you're denouncing is creationism via unexplained magical means. Why would a mother reject her child for its having DNA 0.000001% different than her and the father's? Do you reject your child, just because it has a few mutations?

 

[Girder of Loins]

Evolution is much simpler than design, since it works by extremely simple rules. Imperfect copy plus survival of the fitter copies = evolution.



And I'm calling you uneducated about the theory you think you're denouncing but aren't. You say you denounce evolution, but what you're denouncing is creationism via unexplained magical means. Why would a mother reject her child for its having DNA 0.000001% different than her and the father's? Do you reject your child, just because it has a few mutations?

At which point is a new animal created? Because then you run into this problem. We are different than pigs. We know this genetically. So if new animals are never made, than you're theory at its root is untrue. Animals don't evolve into new ones, new varieties of the same single-celled organism is simply created.

 

[Incariol]

At which point is a new animal created? Because then you run into this problem. We are different than pigs. We know this genetically. So if new animals are never made, than you're theory at its root is untrue. Animals don't evolve into new ones, new varieties of the same single-celled organism is simply created.

Because "animals" don't evolve into new animals, populations do. What you are arguing is a straw man of the theory of evolution.

 

[chris4243]

At which point is a new animal created? Because then you run into this problem. We are different than pigs. We know this genetically. So if new animals are never made, than you're theory at its root is untrue. Animals don't evolve into new ones, new varieties of the same single-celled organism is simply created.

The whole point of evolution is that there's nothing* that you can point to and say -- there, that's a new species. It happens over thousands of generations each similar to their parents, but different than the original. Eventually they become different enough that we call them different species, and they might become reproductively isolated from each other etc.

*The exception to this is hybrid species, which form in a single generation and are significantly different than their parents, and also reproductively isolated due to their genetics. Although many hybrid species are sterile, sometimes they are not, especially among plants. Even so, they don't have unique DNA for themselves but it is clear that their DNA came from their parents.

 

[WildeBear]

We can only subject ourselves to one word: indoctrination.
Theories upon theories form, in every class in school, we get pounded by information. We never question it, in fact, we grow a interest for that we don't understand. The pesticide is in the crops. We base all our trust on people we do not know, we take on their theories without even knowing who they were.

 

[Girder of Loins]

The whole point of evolution is that there's nothing* that you can point to and say -- there, that's a new species. It happens over thousands of generations each similar to their parents, but different than the original. Eventually they become different enough that we call them different species, and they might become reproductively isolated from each other etc.

You have contradicted yourself. First you say,"there's nothing that you can point to and say-- there, that's a new species." Then you say,"we call them different species..." Which one is it? Am I of the same specie as a dragonfly? Is a skin cell the same specie as a pig? To say yes to these would be a ridiculous answer! Obviously the genetic makeup of a pig is far different than a skin cell! Therefore, new species have to arrive at some point and time, and goes back to my original question, when do new species arise?

 

[Girder of Loins]

Because "animals" don't evolve into new animals, populations do. What you are arguing is a straw man of the theory of evolution.

Not a straw man, a view of the theory of evolution called Darwinism. You are what some call a Neo-Darwinist. My problem with this is the Cambrian Explosion. You may say its overused, but tell me how all those species came into existence in such a small time when your theory of evolution calls for gradual changes? Sorry, but the theory and the facts don't line up. Therefore, it is untrue.

 

[chris4243]

You have contradicted yourself. First you say,"there's nothing that you can point to and say-- there, that's a new species." Then you say,"we call them different species..." Which one is it? Am I of the same specie as a dragonfly? Is a skin cell the same specie as a pig? To say yes to these would be a ridiculous answer! Obviously the genetic makeup of a pig is far different than a skin cell! Therefore, new species have to arrive at some point and time, and goes back to my original question, when do new species arise?

And my answer is the same as before: It's a new species when biologists say it is. The only time you will find a distinct boundary is in the case of hybrid species. Otherwise, it is a subjective distinction.

 

[chris4243]

My problem with this is the Cambrian Explosion. You may say its overused, but tell me how all those species came into existence in such a small time when your theory of evolution calls for gradual changes?

I'd like you to give a numerical value as to what you consider to be "such a small time". Just the number of zeros in the "small time" would be enough.

 

[Girder of Loins]

I'd like you to give a numerical value as to what you consider to be "such a small time". Just the number of zeros in the "small time" would be enough.

From what I understand, the Cambrian Explosion happened within a few hundred years, contradictory to what a would happen if evolution happened over long periods of time.

 

[Girder of Loins]

And my answer is the same as before: It's a new species when biologists say it is. The only time you will find a distinct boundary is in the case of hybrid species. Otherwise, it is a subjective distinction.

Well there is another contradiction. You say hybrids are new species, but the species they came from are not. If the originals aren't species, neither is the spawn. But we have travelled far from the original posting of why we don't believe in evolution. What do you define evolution(as in macroeveolution, not micro) as?

 

[Paradoxum]

From what I understand, the Cambrian Explosion happened within a few hundred years, contradictory to what a would happen if evolution happened over long periods of time.

Cambrian Explosion happened over many millions, even tens of millions of years. Still the rate of evolution greatly increased in this time period.

 

[Girder of Loins]

Cambrian Explosion happened over many millions, even tens of millions of years. Still the rate of evolution greatly increased in this time period.

Why did it increase?