Why I do not accept evolution part two.

[Aussie Pete]

The moment you've all been waiting for.............

Introductory comments.

The pro-evolutionist community bears the hallmarks of a dictatorship. This is because the purse strings are controlled by pro-evolutionists. Researchers often dare not contradict the evolutionary bully boys because they won’t get tenure or grants. Professor James Tour advises his students to keep their anti-evolution beliefs to themselves.

“Science against Evolution”. This website is a somewhat sarcastic, and sometimes very funny, commentary on evolution. It raises some interesting issues. Since it is self-explanatory, I’ll just insert the link.

Science Against Evolution Official Home Page

I am fine with the idea and likelihood that speciation is a result of genetic variations. I’ve yet to be convinced that mutations cause the variations. It seems more likely to me that the genetic information was there and the variants were better able to survive. A case in point is the Pepper Moth, long touted as evidence of evolution in action. Now it is obviously two variants of the same species. If the environment changes, so does the survival rate of one or other. If that is “evolution”, then you can claim just about anything as “proof”.

I believe that there is enough evidence to cast serious doubt on evolution as a valid explanation for the origin and development of life on earth. No one can conclusively prove events in history long past. All we can do is examine the evidence and draw possible conclusions from what we observe. I have an additional point of view that the Bible is correct and that it means what it says.

Not Convinced..............

So why am I not convinced by the “science”?

· Huge numbers of fossils appeared at much the same time. The “Cambrian Explosion” is now thought to be over a period of 10 million years, not 70 million. That goes against evolutionary theories.

· Complexity. I used to work in industry, selling to automation companies. Pharmaceutical, oil and gas, paper and most manufacturing is automated. Processes are controlled by industrial computers using sophisticated software. If the software is bugged, the systems crash. When you have many processes that need control, monitoring and safety systems, the system implementation is as important as building the plant. Random changes do not produce good results.

An example. The blood transport system within a mammal. It needs a pump. The whole system starts off extremely small and has to grow with the organism. How does it know when to stop growing? The tubing has to be flexible to permit movement. It needs a temperature regulation system to prevent death by overheating.

If the tubing is punctured, there is a self-healing process that technology cannot begin to match. The system has to recognise a leak, determine the position of the damage and commence repair. If the leak is not repaired, the organism dies. If it takes too long, death occurs. Blood clots in order to patch the defect. If it clots in the wrong place, (within the tube) the organism dies. Veins are different from arteries. They have to have non-return valves or blood does not get back to the heart.

I know how hard it is to get these systems right. Any error in the control system stops the process. How did blood evolve? Did the veins, arteries and heart evolve first? If so, how did the blood get in? If the blood evolved first, how did it get into the system? Blood itself is amazingly complex.

To make the jump from say a reptile to a mammal is complexity upon complexity. I liken it to taking an encyclopaedia, encrypting it and expecting the complete works of Shakespeare to be the result. I know about encryption from my Navy career. I don’t care how many times you run the routine, garbage results. That’s the idea, of course.

· Symbiosis. A great number of symbiotic relationships require organisms that did not exist at the time to make the other organism viable. It is a great concern to those who are concerned about climate change. If one creature dies out, it affects the whole ecosystem. The alarm about the decline in bee numbers is a well known example.

· Behaviours that should be impossible. For example, a parasitic wasp that can work its way through seemingly impregnable spider defences. How many zillions of wasp variants failed before one succeeded? What happened to the rest? Even if they evolved, one failure means the end of the line. My father was a boxer. I could not fight my way out of a paper bag. His abilities were not handed down to the next generation.

· The fossil record. There is zero evidence to suggest that evolution has taken place. There should be far more failures than successes. The vast majority of fossils suggest viable creatures, not failures that imply random processes.

· Widespread scepticism. In the US, 44% of people do not believe in evolution. This is in spite of a blanket ban on Creation being taught as an alternative in most schools. Some of the finest minds reject evolution. Not all are Christians by any means.

· Evolutionary explanations usually revolve around drawings of mature animals. That’s not how they start. They are eggs or embryos. 3,000 fruit fly variants demonstrate that producing a new species from an existing species just does not happen.

· Human qualities are at odds with natural selection. Love your neighbour? You are kidding, right? There is not a lot of that in the animal kingdom. Why condemn racism, genocide, inequality, or any other struggle for domination? That’s how evolution works, surely? Surely genocidal regimes are doing the world a favour? There are way too many people anyway.

· Life itself. Nothing “just happens”. How can a collection of chemicals suddenly come alive? What is the mechanism? What is life anyway?

Evolution to me is like giving a blind and deaf man a pile of sand, some water and stone, copper and iron ores. Then you tell him to construct a building. He has no way of knowing even that he is supposed to be building, let alone turning such base materials into usable products.

 

[Speedwell]

· Evolutionary explanations usually revolve around drawings of mature animals. That’s not how they start. They are eggs or embryos. 3,000 fruit fly variants demonstrate that producing a new species from an existing species just does not happen.

·

The fruit fly experiments were not intended to produce new species, but speciation has been observed. What's your explanation for it?

 

[pitabread]

Evolution to me is like giving a blind and deaf man a pile of sand, some water and stone, copper and iron ores. Then you tell him to construct a building. He has no way of knowing even that he is supposed to be building, let alone turning such base materials into usable products.

Reading through your post, it sounds like a whole lot o' personal incredulity based on a lack of conceptual and factual understanding of the sciences in question.

If you wanted to develop a conceptual understanding of evolution to clear up a lot of your questions, you could, but you'd have to be willing to learn about biology and evolution.

Are you willing to learn?

 

[Aussie Pete]

The fruit fly experiments were not intended to produce new species, but speciation has been observed. What's your explanation for it?

3,000 fruit flies are still fruit flies. Just variations on the original. Of course, if you change definitions to suit observations, you can prove anything you like.

 

[pitabread]

3,000 fruit flies are still fruit flies. Just variations on the original. Of course, if you change definitions to suit observations, you can prove anything you like.

By this argument, all primates still primates. Just variations on the original.

All mammals are still mammals. Just variations on the original.

All eukaryotes are still eukaryotes. Etc, etc...

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

The fruit fly experiments were not intended to produce new species, but speciation has been observed. What's your explanation for it?

Epigenetics could easily be a driving factor, especially given how fast-acting it is and how it is highly impacted by external factors such as the environment.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

By this argument, all primates still primates. Just variations on the original.

All mammals are still mammals. Just variations on the original.

All eukaryotes are still eukaryotes. Etc, etc...

To be fair, your point also hinges on whether or not evolution works the way we think it does, if the timeline as to when things evolved/what they evolved into is correct, and if the current model is applicable.

Personally I'm pro-evolution, but I'm just playing devil's advocate.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

In all honestly, I don't think the question should be whether or not evolution exists; clearly evolution exists, as we can observe the changes it has on various forms of life. I think the real question is whether or not the current model for evolution is correct; which, to be fair, the model we're currently working on is fairly dated and even Darwin himself said that the primary driving force for evolution could be something totally different than natural selection(which, might I say, does have many flaws). I think as research on things like epigenetics and more accurate methods of dating fossils continues to grow, we'll get a much clearer picture of what evolution is and how it works.

 

[pitabread]

To be fair, your point also hinges on whether or not evolution works the way we think it does, if the timeline as to when things evolved/what they evolved into is correct, and if the current model is applicable.

Personally I'm pro-evolution, but I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Eh, my point is really just about taxonomy and how we classify things.

When a creationist says that fruit flies are still just fruit flies, it's just an arbitrary classification that ignores anything to do with underlying population differences and genetics.

Any population can be grouped as broadly or narrowly as we want. :/

 

[Aussie Pete]

Reading through your post, it sounds like a whole lot o' personal incredulity based on a lack of understanding of the science in question.

If you wanted to develop a conceptual understanding of evolution to clear up a lot of your questions, you could, but you'd have to be willing to learn about biology and evolution.

Are you willing to learn?

I've done enough research to satisfy my own mind about evolution. You do not have to agree with me. My "personal" incredulity is shared by some of the most intelligent people on the planet. I disbelieved evolution long before I started researching. I've found nothing to date that will change my mind. I've found plenty that confirms my initial response to evolution. I have a lot more that I could say about this subject. I won't. I've spent enough time on this.

 

[pitabread]

I think the real question is whether or not the current model for evolution is correct

Depends on what "correct" means.

In the sense of being a 100% perfect representation of reality, of course not. All models/theories are simplifications of reality and therefore will always contain a margin of error/uncertainty.

On the other hand, is the current model of evolution as correct as can be based on our present accumulated evidence? Probably, yeah.

It's certainly a lot more viable than anything creationists suggest, given that creationists have no alternative explanation for how species formed and diversified on Earth.

 

[SkyWriting]

Evolution to me is like giving a blind and deaf man a pile of sand, some water and stone, copper and iron ores. Then you tell him to construct a building. He has no way of knowing even that he is supposed to be building, let alone turning such base materials into usable products.

God designed every molecule in the cosmos from scratch and holds each electron in it's orbit. He also planned every chemical interaction throughout time, A to Z.

Colossians 1:17
And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

Eh, my point is really just about taxonomy and how we classify things.

When a creationist says that fruit flies are still just fruit flies, it's just an arbitrary classification that ignores anything to do with underlying population differences and genetics.

Any population can be grouped as broadly or narrowly as we want. :/

I agree, just pointing out that if you're going to tackle an argument and win, you should be careful not to use whatever subject is in question to back up your claim. Otherwise, you get a case of temporary circular-reasoning. Similar to how it's a fallacy to back up the validity of the bible by quoting the bible, in this case, you cannot simply back up evolution with evolution.

 

[pitabread]

I've done enough research to satisfy my own mind about evolution. You do not have to agree with me. My "personal" incredulity is shared by some of the most intelligent people on the planet. I disbelieved evolution long before I started researching. I've found nothing to date that will change my mind. I've found plenty that confirms my initial response to evolution. I have a lot more that I could say about this subject. I won't. I've spent enough time on this.

And therein lies the rub. You don't have a good conceptual or factual understanding of biology and evolution, and you don't have any desire to learn about it to improve your own understanding.

It looks like you're stuck.

Oh well.

---------------

On a side note, this confirms what I've previously read about creationists/religious fundamentalists and the psychology of Closure (aka Need for Closure).

In a nutshell, creationists display higher Need for Closure and therefore are more closed off when it comes to new knowledge, particularly knowledge that may contradict previously held beliefs. In fact, I'd be willing to bet money that most if not all of your purported "research" was from creationist sources, since all your objections are just boilerplate creationist arguments / skepticism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

3,000 fruit flies are still fruit flies. Just variations on the original. Of course, if you change definitions to suit observations, you can prove anything you like.

Of course they are still fruit flies. What did you expect? You are still an ape. You are still a primate, you are still a mammal, etc. and so on. You are relying on a strawman argument. A change of kind is a creationist claim that they cannot support.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

Depends on what "correct" means.

In the sense of being a 100% perfect representation of reality, of course not. All models/theories are simplifications of reality and therefore will always contain a margin of error/uncertainty.

On the other hand, is the current model of evolution as correct as can be based on our present accumulated evidence? Probably, yeah.

It's certainly a lot more viable than anything creationists suggest, given that creationists have no alternative explanation for how species formed and diversified on Earth.

I'm aware. 'Correct' was poor phrasing on my end--I was referring to 'correct' as in what's backed up by empirical evidence without any major contradictions.

I won't say much on creationism, because I'm not a creationist. However, I do think the current model for evolution has its flaws that I would like to see fixed or accounted for--probably in some variant of our current model.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've done enough research to satisfy my own mind about evolution. You do not have to agree with me. My "personal" incredulity is shared by some of the most intelligent people on the planet. I disbelieved evolution long before I started researching. I've found nothing to date that will change my mind. I've found plenty that confirms my initial response to evolution. I have a lot more that I could say about this subject. I won't. I've spent enough time on this.

You really have not. I am sure that I can demonstrate that you do not even know what is and what is not evidence. What you have done is look for excuses to believe and nothing more.

Once again, let's discuss the basics. One cannot learn without understanding the basics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm aware. 'Correct' was poor phrasing on my end--I was referring to 'correct' as in what's backed up by empirical evidence without any major contradictions.

I won't say much on creationism, because I'm not a creationist. However, I do think the current model for evolution has its flaws that I would like to see fixed or accounted for--probably in some variant of our current model.

The models are always being improved upon. But I would be curious in what you think are flaws in the current models.

 

[Speedwell]

That's up to you. You've set out your views, and if that's all you intended to to then you're done. We won't try to talk you out of them, but this thread suffers from the same defect that your first thread did: You told us what you believed, but then you went on to completely mischaracterize the beliefs of those who don't agree with you. In the first thread it was what Christians believe who don't reject evolution. Here it is what the theory of evolution says. Just as in the other thread you were not interested in what those who don't agree with you actually believe about the Bible, you are apparently not interested in what the theory of evolution says either.

A discussion in which one party dictates to the other what his position must be is no fun for either party. So yes, I think you're done.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

Of course they are still fruit flies. What did you expect? You are still an ape. You are still a primate, you are still a mammal, etc. and so on. You are relying on a strawman argument. A change of kind is a creationist claim that they cannot support.

I prefer the term hominoid, since 'ape' makes it sound like we should all be dwelling in a zoo somewhere