I haven't heard anyone discount evolution who know what it means. Try?

Question

It doensn't include anything about the universe, just life. Macro IS micro. Our ape ancestors could be alive or not, it doesn't matter. Being particularly smart and talking is just a trait, like two legs. Evolution has always been a case-by-case event. It guarantees no "arrow of progress," just adaptation.

Answer 1

theace0804: (i) the second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a closed system will tend to a maximum; (ii) what has non-linear dynamics got to do with anything here?



curious_chemical: the 2nd law implies that the disorder of a closed system tends to a maximum, not the other way round. You need to start understanding about closed thermodynamical systems or none of it's going to make any sense. Ice may be more ordered than water, but during crystallisation heat was radiated into the environment and this becomes more disordered.



Not relevant to the discussion here, but a fantastic mind-mangling thought experiment nonetheless, is Maxwell's Demon. Feynman gives a nice account of it in his Lectures on Physics (IIRC).



Edit:

We do live in a very real closed system, called the universe. But on a more practical / local level, your thermodynamic arguments regarding order need to be referenced against an approximation of a closed system. Your arguments regarding ice cubes forming are just bung. You're making the same mistake as thousands of perpetual motion machine designers, and as a result your arguments are invalid.



Another Edit: So let me get this straight. At the big bang, an infinitely large space-time was instantly created for the rest of perpetuity, and this space-time is fixed and absolute? That's abit 19th Century don't you think? Also, if the edge of the universe is expanding outwards at the speed of light, then there exists a causation boundary as the interior cannot causally affect the exterior. So ... the universe is a closed thermodynamic system.



Your grasp of cosmology is pitiful but your grasp of thermodynamics is even worse. What you say is in direct conflict with the 1st and 2nd laws, two fairly simple laws.



I don' care if it isn't your "idea to make thermodynamics an issue in evolution". You made a horribly incorrect remark about thermodynamics. If your physics is so way off, why should your biology be any better?



You want to argue biology? Okay, let's start with "Evolution has always been a case-by-case event". Wrong. Evolution is about trends not events. Our "Our ape ancestors" is wrong; apes and humans have a common ancestor, but we most certainly don't have an "ape ancestor". How about "Evolution [...] guarantees [...] adaptation."? Adaptation is never guaranteed, as witnessed by the continual extinction of species. One could probably argue that becoming more adaptable is an "arrow of progress" for the species concnered. I know you are trying to argue against popular misconceptions of darwinian thought here, but you're doing it really badly.



Although it is assumed by most that the same mechanisms are responsible for both macro- and micro-evolution (gene mixing and mutation), the way they are studied scientifically differ. As a result, it is specious at best and unscientific at worst to claim that "micro is macro" in such a loud voice. You also fail to show how the same mechanism does result in two very different phenomenom, that genes between species usually diverge and genes within species usually combine, making it very easy for creationists to pick holes in your arguments.



In short, you haven't got a clue what you are talking about and are thereby doing scientists a large disservice.

Answer 2

That’s exactly what I’m doing, If you are interested then please watch out for my formal debate on that exact topic, Macro-evolution DOES indeed have logical flaws (unless I'm logically proven otherwise)



Now I think you will enjoy my formal debate, it will take place this Sunday (2nd of April) on Infidel Discussion board.



And while you waiting please visit the link(s), and look up into macro-evolution and its problems.





I hope that helps



Anhar Hussain Miah





EDIT: Macro-evolution is MOST Certainly NOT the same! THAT’S WHY I URGE YOU TO SEE MY DEBATE, I ALMOST WANT TO "SPILL THE BEANS" but then that is something I can't do because its intended for a formal debate, I'm just itching to show you the flaws but I can't because of the debate. All you have to do is wait until this Sunday and go over to the Infidel Discussion Board.



EDIT 2: OK the Order one I can answer since its got nothing to do with my debate,



Order is defined as that which is placed within a particular sequence. That is what order is, HOWEVER, a REPEATING ORDER IS CALLED A PATTERN, e.g.: 10101010101010, is indeed an order BUT it is a REPEATING ORDER. Hence its a PATTERN ORDER, its information is LOW, because to describe it requires a very simple rule, place 1 then 0 then repeat. However this example:



"This is an another example of order" is ALSO an order HOWEVER IT can not simply be described by a Repeating pattern. And hence its information is HIGH i.e. very complex, in order to describe this would be almost impossible because short if actuating describing where each letter is placed at each exact place. No such mathematical expression exists to generate such a complex order. I.e. it has both ORDER AND ORGANISATION (i.e. a certain structure) thus the ORDER SEEN IN a crystal is NOT the same as the ORDER SEEN in a DNA strand. And though simple physical laws can and do explain how simple low information crystal can form. By now means does that say any such physical laws exist that allows the formation of HIGH complexity information order of DNA.

Answer 3

Two main reasons why I can't believe in evolution (I don't believe in creationism either):



First: The 2nd law of thermodynamics. It states, truthfully, that everything is created of energy - and that energy can only decrease. Things are all created -- but then its downhill from there.



Things and animals may change, but they don't advance - theres never been any physical evidence of this. In fact, the ONLY genetic mutations ever recorded have only hindered life, and have NEVER improved it.



Secondly: Chaos theory. The chance that everything worked out the way it did is too outrageous. To say that natural selection let certain mutations that improved life -- or didn't harm it; why wouldn't you see some animals with 5 legs? or 3? Or why wouldn't we see any species with particularly 'odd' characteristics?



I'll grant you, the duck billed platapus - but thats only one.



Also, I have a hard time believing that we've been around for millions of years, but the population of the entire earth has only occurred in the last 10-20,00 years? What has the population been doing for so long?

Answer 4

If apes evolved into man, why are there still apes? The whole point of evolution is that the species has to adapt to survive, yet they survived. The theory of evolution is circular reasoning that can't support itself.



"A prominent proponent of the evolution theory in the 19th century, Thomas H. Huxley, wrote: "No one is more strongly convinced than I am of the vastness of the gulf between . . . man and the brutes . . . , for he alone possesses the marvelous endowment of intelligible and rational speech [and] . . . stands raised upon it as on a mountain top, far above the level of his humble fellows."



Evolutionist Michael C. Corballis observes that "there is a striking discontinuity between humans and the other primates . . . 'Our brain is three times as large as we would expect for a primate of our build.'" And neurologist Richard M. Restak explains: "The [human] brain is the only organ in the known universe that seeks to understand itself."



Leakey acknowledges: "Consciousness presents scientists with a dilemma, which some believe to be unresolvable. The sense of self-awareness we each experience is so brilliant it illuminates everything we think and do." He also says: "Language does indeed create a gulf between Homo sapiens [humans] and the rest of the natural world."



Pointing to another marvel of the human mind, Peter Russell writes: "Memory is undoubtedly one of the most important human faculties. Without it there would be no learning . . . , no intellectual functioning, no development of language, nor any of the qualities . . . generally associated with being human."



Furthermore, no animal engages in worship. Thus, Edward O. Wilson notes: "The predisposition to religious belief is the most complex and powerful force in the human mind and in all probability an ineradicable part of human nature."



"Human behavior poses many other Darwinian mysteries," acknowledges evolutionist Robert Wright. "What are the functions of humor and laughter? Why do people make deathbed confessions? . . . What is the exact function of grief? . . . Now that the person is gone, how does grieving serve the genes?"



The evolutionist Elaine Morgan admits: "Four of the most outstanding mysteries about humans are: (1) why do they walk on two legs? (2) why have they lost their fur? (3) why have they developed such large brains? (4) why did they learn to speak?"



How are these questions answered by evolutionists? Morgan explains: "The orthodox answers to these questions are: (1) 'We do not yet know'; (2) 'We do not yet know'; (3) 'We do not yet know', and (4) 'We do not yet know.'""



"7 A London Times writer, Christopher Booker (who accepts evolution), said this about it: “It was a beautifully simple and attractive theory. The only trouble was that, as Darwin was himself at least partly aware, it was full of colossal holes.” Regarding Darwin’s Origin of Species, he observed: “We have here the supreme irony that a book which has become famous for explaining the origin of species in fact does nothing of the kind.”—Italics added."

Answer 5

You'd have to explain what you mean by "evolution." The theories have become many, and they're all so muddled that most aren't hard to disprove.



The primary problem I see with evolution (from a scientific perspective) is that there isn't a DNA or RNA sequence that allows the genetics to be modified. There is adaptation, but the extent of change required to produce such diverse lifeforms as we see around us is outside the realm of mere adaptation. Some scientists have tried to argue mutation, but that would require widespread mutations of a similar nature. This has never been observed, and thus can't be called even a theory.

Answer 6

Some important factors prevent the formation of fossils from being common:



Fossilization itself is not a particularly common event. It requires conditions that preserve the fossil before it becomes scavenged or decayed. Such conditions are common only in a very few habitats, such as river deltas, peat bogs, and tar pits. Organisms that do not live in or near these habitats will be preserved only rarely.



Lack of fossils is a poor attempt to disprove Evolution.



There is no reason to think that the life around today is comparable in complexity to the earliest life. All of the simplest life would almost certainly be extinct by now, outcompeted by more complex forms.





Self-replicators can be incredibly simple, as simple as a strand of six DNA nucleotides. This is simple enough to form via prebiotic chemistry. Self-replication sets the stage for evolution to begin, whether or not you call the molecules "life."



The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena." The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas. If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges. Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.



The second law of thermodynamics does not prohibit Evolution. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because:



the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.

entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.

In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.



The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution.

Answer 7

the scientific method the scientist use is not based on facts only speculation and a lot of daydreams. Scientist cant even decode human dna let alone what they think happened 450 trillion years ago. Humans for the longest time have been able to communicate and their is no record written of people with primate families. And if people have been around that long thier would be trillions of people on earth. And the Bible is an accurate record of what happened and it also says each living thing after its own kind not speciation.

Proverbs 24:9 "The thought of foolishness is sin."

Answer 8

interesting... i know what you mean about people not actually knowing anything. their response is usually something like "well the devil did that!" a relatively retarted answer if you ask me... well i fell like those people give christians a bad name, because i myself am a christian and can give this a go... intelligently.



im no scientist, let me tell you. i dont even like science... but some times the thought of evolution just seems relatively strange to me. i was once explained the way a giraffe's neck works. it has a little sponge like device towards the base that falls into place when he dips his head to drink, so that blood dosnt rush down his neck and flood his brain killing him. the giraffe is the only know creature to have this sponge divice, obviously created or evolved specifically for him. but if his neck also evolved, as scientists think, from some creature with a regular neck to fit his enviornment, then he wouldnt have needed the sponge device, making the neck usless as all the giraffes would have died when trying to get a drink of water. even scientists think that only one trait develops at a time. and i dont know if any of this makes any sence, but im not really good at writing anyway. talking is more my thing. well respond if you wish, i would like to dialog some more...

Answer 9

1. Cosmic evolution—the origin of time, space, and matter.

Big Bang.

2. Chemical evolution—the origin of higher elements from

hydrogen.

3. Stellar and planetary evolution—Origin of stars and

planets.

4. Organic evolution—Origin of life frominanimate matter.

5. Macroevolution—Changing fromone kind into another.

6. Microevolution—Variations within kinds. Only this one

has been observed.



This deception is a classic bait and switch. One definition of evolution (decent with modification) is given, and the others are assumed to be true by association. The first five meanings are believed by faith and are religious. Only the last one is scientific.



The First Law of Thermodynamics



The First Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and

energy can neither be created nor destroyed something

cannot come from nothing.



The Second Law of Thermodynamics



The Second Law of Thermodynamics simply states that

everything tends toward disorder. Although they may be converted from one form to another. This natural process

can be seen in the world around us. Ice melting is one example of matter changing from one form to another, a solid into a liquid. The ice may change physical properties, but the mass before the reaction remains constant with the mass after the reaction. This law supports the Biblical view of creation, requiring a special

miracle from God to account for all the matter and energy in the universe. Evolution attempts to credit the Big Bang with this miracle while denying it’s violating the most

basic law of the universe — If a truck carrying a stack of

bricks hits a bump in the road causing the bricks to fall off, the bricks would not fall in their previously ordered state. They would fall randomly; and entropy would increase, illustrating the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Bible describes the Second Law as extending from the earth to the heavens in Psalm 102:25-26, Isaiah 51:6, and Hebrews 1:10-11. Evolutionists contrive silly excuses and

reasons to ignore this fundamental law of physics because it contradicts their pet theory. Evolutionists assume that

adding energy (open system) will overcome the 2nd law of

thermodynamics.



1. The universe is closed system.



2. Adding energy is destructive without a complex mechanism to harness the energy. The Japanese added lots of energy to Pearl Harbor in 1941 and did not organize any thing.

The sun’s energy will destroy a roof, house, paint job...

Only a very complex molecule called chlorophyll can harness the sun’s energy.

One leaf cell is more complex the universe verifies the laws

of thermodynamics. The universe is wearing down, not

winding up.



Salt in the Oceans.

The water in the oceans contains 3.6% dissolved minerals

giving the ocean its salinity. Salt, composed of the

elements sodium and chlorine, is the primary mineral. For years, scientists have been measuring the amount of sodium in the oceans and have found that an estimated 457

million tons are deposited into the oceans annually, while only 122 million tons leave the ocean via numerous methods.

Given the current amount of salt in the oceans, the data

strongly favors a recent creation and global flood. If applied to the evolutionist's timeframe of millions of years, the oceans would be saturated by salt. Even using liberal estimates of salinity levels, the maximum possible age of the earth is 62 million years. The evolution theory postulates that the earth is 4.6 billion years old.



Since the proposal of the idea of uniformity by Charles Lyell in the early 1800s, geologists have struggled to explain polystrate fossils. A polystrate fossil is a fossil encased not in a single layer of strata but in multiple layers. Uniformity, advocating that the "present is the key to the past," describes each layer being laid down over extensive periods of time. The problem with each layer taking so long to form is that most fossils found in these layers would have decayed prior to the forming of the next layer. Some examples that confirm the idea of rapid fossilization are as follows:

1. Fossil of ichthyosaur, buried and fossilized while giving

birth. (Creation Magazine, Dec. 99)

2. Petrified trees are found in scores of places around the

world.

3. Polystrate trees found in France upside down extending

through many layers. (Bone of Contention by Silvia Baker,

p. 12).



Geologists fail to accept that the only reasonable explanation of polystrate fossils is that the layers formed quickly around plant and animal life before they had time to decay. Seems to correspond with the Biblical account of the worldwide flood, doesn't it?



“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a

fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.”

- Dr. T. N. Tahmisian,

Atomic Energy Commission,

USA

Answer 10

Darwins theory is a "theory" not a "fact". Theories remain until disproven - thus the debate over evolution. Frankly, I refuse to believe I came from an ape. The bible says we were created in His image and I don't think He looks like an ape.

Funniest thing I saw was a bumper sticker that said " if we evolved from apes - how come they are still around?

Answer 11

You have made several statements but neither support them or spell out a question, so I'll leave you with a thought,

the closest genetic match to humans is the chimpanzee, which has 94% the same genetic sequences as humans.

Compared to the squid which is only 80% and the banana, merely 60%.

Answer 12

In the same vein, I'll ask you to disprove Creation.

The biggest things missing in evolution are the transitional fossil records. Evolutionist say they just haven't been found, yet.

However, as time goes by, more & more historical evidence of the Bible is discovered.

Remember when secular historians challenged that Jericho did not exist?

Answer 13

"organic decision is a technique of eliminating for the weaker species who won't be able to adapt and advance" That statement is pretend. means or weak spot has no longer something to do with it. it truly is how properly the species suits the ecosystem. there are various case the position organic decision has created a lot less comple "weaker" species. All species have the aptitude to evolve - it truly is area of the reproductive cycle. there's no purpose or route in organic decision. No divine intervention is needed.

Answer 14

Eze 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.



Jer 17:5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.

Answer 15

If you clarify your question, it would be easier to answer. Are you asking if people know what evolution is or are you asking if someone can disprove it?



Ok, well I still don't know what you are exactly trying to ask, but yes I understand what evolution is and I believe it happened and continues to happen. I'll add more later if I figure out what your exact question is.

Answer 16

If evolution happened for at least 1 billion years (with chordates) why aren't we tripping over fossils? That's a whole lot of bones that just disappeared, eh?

Answer 17

I don't really understand the question, but i'll attempt to answer it.

I don't believe in Evolution, but I believe in evolution. Ape to man, no. Flower to shorter flower, yes. We all adapt and change, but not from species to species.

Answer 18

the intricate structures in a cell couldnt have been formed by natural selection, which means each part was formed slowly, separately. actually, the cell cannot function without even one of its parts.

Answer 19

ok. the thing is, i'm not really sure, because i used to believe in both things (evolution and God's creation) but i'm not really sure now (about evolution), but i guess it could be plausible.

Answer 20

sounds good.

Answer 21

(Cheating) I copied these over from my blog. Outside of the lack of any proof of evolution of species (not evolution within species), there just hasn't been enough time!



My Thoughts On

Evolution: Theory or Law?

Gravity is not a theory. It is a force of nature, with defined laws of Physics. Newton began with a theory, which has since proven out through continual testing and observable repeatability.

NO origin theory can ever be more than a theory scientifically. No person outside of the event witnessed the event; since we are already here, it can't be repeated; and since we are incapable of containing all the substance and energy of the universe in one place, we cannot build a valid test.

The best that any scientific theory can hope for is that the preeminent amount of observable effect can be interpreted to support that theory.

Examples: Theory of Relativity vs Quantum Theory. Each theory is mutually exclusive of the other, but relativity has the advantage of being observable and testable on a much wider scale than quantum mechanics. Principle arguments state that relativity works within the known laws of Physics, whereas quantum mechanics states that the laws no longer apply at the sub-atomic level. The failure of quantum theory is that as far below the atomic level that we can visibly observe, quantum mechanics doesn't work. It only 'works' at the point where the action is no longer visible, but a reaction can be interpreted to support the theory.

Again, both are viable theories, but since neither is observable, testable, and repeatable, they can NEVER be more than a theory.

The next step is what you CHOOSE to embrace, and that choice is what many of us call faith.



Some scientists OBSERVE mutation and natural selection and INTERPRET them as evolution. There is NO CHANGE FROM ONE SPECIES INTO ANOTHER, WHICH IS WHAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION MAINTAINS. In fact, genetics has proven that DNA cannot 'evolve' between species because unlike DNA lengths and / or DNA strands with different RNA positions on the strands CANNOT COMBINE. This PROVES genetically that evolution of species CANNOT occur. I wonder why they aren't teaching that in the schools? Too new? The evidence predates the internet.

The problem isn't evolution. The problem is the 'science' they use to 'prove' it.

First, they started with an unsupported assumption (that the earth is millions / billions) of years old, then they used circular reasoning between varying fields of science to support that precept as fact, then they assumed without any evidence (in fact, in the face of their own evidence to the contrary) that one species can evolve into another. Fact: DNA strands of different lengths or different RNA locations cannot combine. That means in order to produce say, a human, from say, gorillas, a male and a female gorilla would have to have identically mutated genes at exactly the same time at exactly the same place, find each other and successfully mate. The probability of that happening one time (ape to man) exceeds the most liberal mathematical calculations of probability. To happen thousands or hundreds of thousands of times to evolve from a single cell organism to any mammal way exceeds ANY mathematical concept of possibility. What 'science' has done is said "This is what we are going to prove, don't confuse us with the facts."

Making science an elective won't solve the problem. The problem is that a secular society has succumbed to political pressure to teach circularly reasoned half-true theories as science fact. This is teaching the kids bad science, which is what is causing our nation to slip in the world market place. This is the problem. It is the job of parents, not teachers or pastors or anybody else to train up their own children. The law protects kids in public school environments who know the truth and choose to give faith based answers. Teach your kids to examine and weigh all the evidence for themselves. It will make them stronger Christians.

P.S. Secular science has never offered why, only how.

Jesus can teach us why.





My Thoughts On

The Creation vs. Evolution Discussion

Section I

It is not impossible to know the truth, because truth is absolute. It is not possible to PROVE a theory of origin because there were no witnesses and it is not repeatable. And you are right, science works well at revealing deception. For example, let's look at the 'ancient universe' necessary for evolution:

1) The sun is shrinking at a rate of about 3/4 of a mile in diameter per year, which makes sense, because it is releasing energy (1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics). If you go back 10,000 years, no big deal. If you go back 1,000,000 years, we now have 1 less planet in our solar system. If you go back 135 million years, the earth is now the closest planet to the sun, and it is in our atmosphere. OOPS, that won't work.



2) If you consider radioactive elements and radioactive half-lives, and the amount of KNOWN uranium on the planet, and you go backwards 10,000 years, no big deal. However, if you go back 1,000,000 years, about 1/10th of the planet is uninhabitable because of radiation. If you go back 1.8 million years, the surface of the earth is fried. OOPS, that won't work.

3) Radiometric dating / carbon dating - lava beds throughout the planet have been dated using radio-isotopic and carbon dating at several hundred million years, just like the lava dome at mount St. Helens. Wait, didn't we SEE that one erupt? OOPS, that won't work.

4) Geological dating - we can see that the Grand Canyon took millions of years to make, as we observe the layers of sediment that were laid down. And over here, just south of Mt. St Helens we see another canyon with almost identical layering and geological evidence that took -- FOUR HOURS!!

Evidence is only useful if it is INTERPRETED CORRECTLY. Evolutionists begin with a presumption of an 'ancient universe' and interpret the evidence to fit. Problem is that it doesn't.

In addition to everything else, geneticists have proven that evolution of one DNA species into another DNA species is impossible. Mathematics has proven that the amount of time required to initiate life from inorganics based on all known elements in the universe being tried together sequentially at a rate of one trial per second would take approximately 10 to the 128th power seconds, which is about 40 times what the evolutionists say is the age of the earth. Bad science is bad science. Period!

Section II

A vast number of people 'believe' in evolution because they are indoctrinated from the moment they can have a cognitive thought. Comic books, TV shows, stories in school that start out "millions of years ago" lay the foundation for accepting the unsupportable premise.

I am one of those who discards evolution as being God's tool of creation. The Bible in Hebrew in the book of Genesis. states in indisputable terms that the creation process took exactly six literal earth days. Some people will argue of things that happened before the first day, often referred to as the 'Gap' theory. Before the first day, time did not exist, so trying to say millions of years before the first day would be like trying to measure the length of a football field with a gallon of water. There just is no way of measuring time outside the time domain.

Additionally, there is way too much scientific evidence to support a young earth, a young solar system, and even a young universe.

I believe what I believe because I have examined ALL of the evidence on both sides, and not taken the Pope or anyone else's 'word' for it.

Section III

What would YOU do if somebody disproved the Origin Theory of Evolution? Of course, you would have to begin by examining the arguments for a young earth, the Anthropic principle, separation of species by RNA encoding, separation of genus and phyla by DNA strand length, the mathematics of probability and chaos theory, not to mention the first and second laws of Physics.

But then, after you have dismissed all of these things through circular reasoning and unsupportable assumptions, what would remain is what you CHOOSE to have faith in.



Bottom line: if your right and I'm wrong, I lose nothing; if I'm right and you're wrong, you lose EVERYTHING! You might want to consider looking at the discussions more openly.

Section IV

The best argument which I know is that of the young universe / earth. Evolution requires time, lots of time. Inevitably, if you check one field of science against another, the only supports they have for an ancient universe always boils back to circular reasoning.



Here are a few observables that the evolutionists have to create non-observable postulates to argue.

1)Geology: The Grand Canyon took millions of years to form, yet we observed as a slightly smaller rendition was made when Mt. St. Helens exploded(in less than 4 hours)



2)Biochemistry: It takes great heat, massive amounts of animal and plant life, enormous pressure, and millions of years to make oil. Back to Mt. St. Helens, new oil deposits (and petrified wood) at the base in less than 10 years.

3)Genetics - two strands of DNA of different lengths cannot combine. No evidence anywhere of any single-cell organism with a DNA strand even close to the length of mammalian DNA.

4)Astronomy - NASA expected over 20 feet of dust on the surface of the moon when they sent Apollo up, based on observable and rate measurable dust falling to the moon's surface, and an anticipation of millions of years accumulation. Apollo landed, less than an inch, not old enough.

And there are OOOOOODLES more.

No matter how you look at it, both are theories and not testable and repeatable, so you need to fall back on faith either way.

Answer 22

The argument about the second law of thermodynamics demonstrates and understanding of the basic concept of evolution, but not of thermodynamics or life. Obviously life exists, so we can assume that life does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics (this is because life uses energy from the surrounding environment to decrease the entropy of the organism itself - if a cat were a closed system it would be a problem, but since it interacts with the evirnoment it's not). Obviously an individual organisms starts as a single cell and gets bigger, and obviously a single cell is less complex than an adult human, so this increase in complexity doesn't contradict the second law of thermodynamics. Given that life exists and a complex organisms can grow from a single cell, why is it impossible for an organism to be slighly more complex than its parent? There's no reason whatsoever why an organism can't use energy from the surrounding environment to become more complex. Evolution is no more of a thermodynamic impossibility than the very existence of life is.



Monkeys and apes still exit because we didn't evolve from monkeys or apes. We share a common ancestor with them. That ancestor no longer exists.



The other arguments demonstrate a distinct lack of understanding of the theory of evolution, so:



Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the origin of the diversity of species (note that it does not, and is not intended to explain the origin of life). The basic idea of evolution is that mutations result in genetic diversity in a population, and consequently different traits, and different selective pressures favor certain traits over others. In a diverse population, some individuals are better suited to the environment than others, and the individuals that are better suited are more likely to survive to reproduce and thus pass their genes on to the next generation. Consequently, the next generation will have more of the "good" genes and fewer of the "bad" genes than the generation before it. Because the environment is constantly changing, the definition of "good" and "bad" genes is also constantly changing. Something that used to be an advantage can become a disadvantage, and vice versa. More often, however, neutral traits will become either good or bad. Changes in environment can include not only changes in weather or resources, but also competition from other species.



As the environmental pressures change, the population of organisms changes with it. Over time, the little changes start to add up, and eventually the population will be so different from the ancestral state that it will be considered a different species. The diversity of species results from splitting of populations. If a population is separated by some geographical or reproductive barrier, the two subpopulations will likely evolve in different ways, to become two separate species. Eventually the two species may be reunited, but they will no longer be able to interbreed. Instead, they will compete with each other, and likely diverge even more.



The theory of evolution is supported by considerable scientific evidence, and is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. It is the ONLY scientific theory currently in existence that explains the diversity of species. Some people claim that "intelligent design" is an alternative theory for the origin of species. However, intelligent design is not a theory in the scientific sense. It is not supported by scientific evidence and can never be tested experimentally (not because we don't have the tools yet, but because it is theoretically impossible). Intelligent design provides an alternative to science, not an alternative scientific theory.



Science is not about finding a single piece of evidence to conclusively prove a theory. It's about constructing theories to fit the existing evidence and gathering new evidence that supports or refutes existing theories. Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence. While no one point conclusively proves it, when all the evidence is considered in the context of existing scientific knowledge evolution is a well substantiated theory. Intelligent design is not. What follows are brief explanations of some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.



1. Vestigial structures



One example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.



Another example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes evolved from quadrupeds, and some species still retain not on pelvises, but tiny protrusions of bone in a location that corresponds to the location of the legs in other quadrupeds.



2. Microevolution can be observed in both a controlled laboratory setting and in nature.



Creationists will tell you that microevolution does not prove macroevolution. This is true. However, it does provide evidence that macroevolution may be possible. Taken in the context of the other evidence for evolution, microevolution provides a mechanism by which macroevolution could occur. On its own, it doesn't prove that macroevolution occurs, but it does suggest that it is possible.



3. The fossil record.



Although the fossil record does not provide a “complete” record as fossils form only under certain conditions, it does show a gradual change in the morphology of species as well as numerous extinct species. There are a number of methods used to date fossils, and the time period from which a fossil comes can be determined with reasonable accuracy.



4. Imperfect structures (the blind spot of the mammalian eye, for example).



I want to mention the bind-spot of the mammalian eye specifically because creationists often hold up the human eye up as an example of something that is too perfect to occur by "chance" (i.e. as the result of the natural selection of beneficial changes among random mutations).



There are also numerous examples where the morphology of a species is constrained by similar patterns in its ancestors (quadrupeds, vertebrates, etc.).



5. Developmental biology reflects evolutionary lineage.



Creationists like to bring up a man named Haeckel in response to this argument. Haeckel suggested that development reflects evolutionary origin. It was later discovered that several of the sketches he used as evidence over-exaggerated certain features, and some were of different embryos all together. However, many of his sketches do accurately reflect the morphology of the embryo. Haeckel's methods were sometimes wrong and his ethics were poor, but it just so happens that his theory turned out to be fairly accurate.



Any developmental biologist can tell you that embryos of related species show similar morphology in the early stages of development. The point at which their development begins to diverge shows a strong correlation with the relative point at which the evolution of the two species diverged. Human embryos look similar to chimpanzee embryos for a lot longer than they look similar to cat embryos, but all three develop similar structures in the early stages of development. The early embryos of humans, chimps, and cats are similar to each other but quite different from, say, a sea urchin embryo. This is based on photographs of actual embryos taken by respectable scientists, NOT on Haeckel's drawings.



I find it rather funny that creationists try to argue that because one scientist was a fraud we should disregard all of developmental biology.



6. Genetic analysis shows similarities among species reflecting evolutionary origins.



The main point here is that recent work has shown that the extent of genetic divergence among species is consistent with the expected separation based on the fossil record and morphological evidence. This supports the conclusions drawn from the other evidence.



Genetic analysis often reveals remnants of a gene that is functional in one species but not another (i.e. a mutation occurred that made the gene non-functional, but most of the sequence is still intact). Why would God have created non-functional sequences that are extremely similar to functional genes found in related species?



Also, non-coding regions of DNA show degrees of similarity that are consistent with the expected degree of evolutionary divergence. I understand how you could argue that God was essentially working form a common genetic template for all species, but why change the non-coding regions? These differences result from mutations that do not affect the phenotype of the species in any way but accumulate over time. Non-coding regions show sequences that are conserved with changes, and the number of changes is consistent with the number of mutations that would be expected to have occurred since the approximate time of existence of most recent common ancestor.



7. Homologous structures.



Homologous structures are structures that typically have similar morphological features and, often, similar functions, and are the result of evolutionary change of a single structure present in the most recent common ancestor of the two species. A homoplastic structure is one that may have a similar function and superficial appearance to another structure but is the result of convergent evolution (i.e. it was not present in the most recent common ancestry).



The most obvious examples of homoplastic structures are things like a human's hand and a gorilla's hand. A more subtle example is the human hand and the bat wing. Although the two structures clearly serve different functions, their bone structures are nearly identical. This is because the bat wing is a modified mammalian forelimb. In other word, the most recent common ancestor of the human and the bat was a mammal that had a forelimb with a bone structure similar to that of the modern human hand and other mammalian forelimbs. In humans this forelimb became the hand. In bats it became the wing.



An interesting example of homoplastic structures is the bird wing and the bat wing. Although the two structures clearly serve similar functions (i.e. flying), they are anatomically quite different. They have quite different bone structures and operate according to different mechanical mechanisms. In fact, the bat wing is structurally more similar to human hand than the bird wing. Incidentally, the bird and bat wings are homoplastic as wings but homologous as forelimbs.



That is just one example. The animal kingdom is littered with examples of structures that serve different functions but have extremely similar morphological traits, and structures that serve similar functions but show clear evidence of distinct evolutionary origin.



8. Many cellular and biochemical processes are conserved in a variety of species.



The point here is that virtually all cells utilize similar mechanisms of DNA replication and protein synthesis, share certain respiration pathways, and other biochemical processes. Related species show more similarities. For example, all plants are capable of photosynthesis, and utilize a virtually identical biochemical pathway to accomplish this. If you study cell biology you will find numerous examples of pathways that are common to different types of cells. I'm not going to go into this more here as it requires considerable background in cell biology. However, these biochemical similarities support they theory that all cells share a common ancestor.



9. Vestigial biochemical pathways (for example, pancreatic cells are light-sensitive even though they are located deep inside the body).



These are similar to vestigial structures at the cellular level. The specific example I mentioned is the light-sensitive behavior of pancreatic cells. Basically, the pancreas is located inside the body and will never be exposed to light. However, pancreatic cells grown in vitro (i.e. in a Petri dish, test tube, etc.) demonstrate light-sensitive activation of biochemical pathways similar to that seen in the cells that form the retina. There is no reason for this behavior unless this pathway is a remnant (i.e. a vestigial pathway) of a pathway present in an ancestral cell that did have come in contact with light.



There are many other examples of vestigial biochemical pathways. Like vestigial structures, their existence is easily explained by evolution but makes no sense in the context of creationism or "intelligent design."





For more information, see the following links:

http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage16.html

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/index.shtml

http://fermat.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html

Or just do a google search for something like “evidence of evolution,” or check your local library.