Want to take an Evolution challenge?

Question

Want to take part?

Here is my challenge. Give me good scientific evidence that at least questions evolution. But beware, I will not tolerate an answer that shows ignorance to science. So only answer if you are sure your argument is genuine science, rather then based on ignorance.

Answer 1

The Cambrian Explosion.

Over what appears to be a short period of time (perhaps as few as five million years), a great number of new body plans entered the fossil record.



We don't know why.

Possible (speculative!) explanations:

a) This is an artifact of not having good fossils from the periods just prior to this time, and evolution was proceeding at a normal pace

b) This represents an actual event, caused by many different different phyla obtaining a "biomineralization" gene family at about the same time, possibly through some lateral gene transfer mechanism that operated then but isn't operating now.

Answer 2

A lot of empirical observations have led to this idea of evolution, that living things change and mutate in such a way as to become different living things over time. The problem is all of the evidence is empirical, and as such is not sufficient to prove the theory. To prove evolution, you would have to watch it happen and that's not possible given the time frames involved. Also, most theories attain results when applied to a given situation. Evolution never does. I cannot use the theory of evolution to predict how something will evolve, the number of variables seems too great and ultimately our understanding of the mechanism is nowhere near 100%. In science we use experiments to prove a theory. You can't conduct an evolution experiment (at least not entirely, some computer evolution experiments on virtual creatures has been useful), you can't have a 'control' variable. Evolution really is just the observation that life forms change and adapt over time, and all of its evidence is observation based.



Keep in mind that the ancient Greeks thought that all matter was composed of the elements, fire, water, wind and earth. They believed this based on empirical observations. They realized you could light wood on fire, this made them think the fire was contained in the wood. They strongly believed this for a long time. This is why you don't use empirical observations to justify a theory, because they can be wrong, they are not necessary and sufficient conditions.

Answer 3

If there was any valid scientific evidence that invalidated evolution then evolution would no longer be recognised as a scientific theory.



For the answerer above on stomach acid:-

Acidity comes in a whole range of concentrations. Orange juice is acid but doesn't burn your mouth. Stomach acid evolved by becoming progressively more acidic and the lining of the stomach evolved in parallel. Each increase in acidity permitted a greater degree of digestion which gave more nutrition to that particular individual, thereby giving an evolutionary advantage over rivals with stomachs with less acidity. Thus over many generations those which produced more concentrated acid (and whose stomach linings has evolved to deal with it) came to dominate the gene pool.

Answer 4

For Darwinian evolution to be correct, information gaining mutations must occur (and be selected for) millions of times.

In a search of the literature involving almost 20 million references all of the beneficial mutations located were loss mutations and mutations such as sickle cell anemia that have a beneficial effect only in very special circumstances. In most situations they have a decidedly negative effect on the organism’s health. Not a single clear example of an information-gaining mutation was located. It was concluded that molecular biology research shows that information-gaining mutations have not yet been documented.

Answer 5

Hooray! An Em Adjineri reference by someone who isn't me!



I don't have any evidence that casts doubt on evolution.



EDIT:

lb_centaur: It's the result of a fused chromosome and isn't really an argument against evolution.

Answer 6

Evolution has been put to the challenge since the idea originated. It has lasted over 100 years under scientific scrutiny. I cannot wait to see some of the replies.





"Why would you want to believe that a monkey was your uncle" is a common one.

Answer 7

I can give you a few things that question rather we really know the entire mechanism, but I can't go against the big idea.



For instance the human little toe is shrinking worldwide. How would natural selection possibly explain that?

Answer 8

Let me guess, you dusted off your science books and scanned over evolution in wikipedia. You probably already have a 2ND window set up now. So now you feel like you are confident enough to quiz others on evolution. As if Dawkins or maybe even Darwin in a dream told you "Go forth and ask the fools about evolution".



So full of yourself.

Answer 9

Which evolved first; stomach acid or the stomach lining? If the acid evolved first, it would eat up the stomach tissue. If the lining evolved first, why? There was no need for it before the acid came into being. If they evolved mutually, that's quite a coincidence.



Also, for something to bear the label of true science, it must be able to be repeated over and over through subsequent testing. Evolution cannot and does not qualify as true science since it has never been able to be repeated. Until such time as it can be "proven" in fact, it must remain conjecture or theory. As theory, it finds itself on equal footing with creation, which also cannot be duplicated in the lab.

Answer 10

In answer to lb_centaur--two of the chromosomes found in primates fused together to become one chromosome in humans.



;-)

Answer 11

The fossil record doesn't back up the theory. There are no gradual shifts between species found. Punctual equilibrium is the modified answer, but that has never been observed. There are complex life forms very early in the fossil record. If evolution was true, we wouldn't expect to see that.

Answer 12

Let's see if you know the answer to this.



Why do primates have 24 pairs of chromosomes but humans have only 23?

Answer 13

evolution is not repeatable (for animals that weights more than a microbe) , it would take too long. that questions evolution will you send me a cake now ?

Answer 14

I would love to take part.



Just 1 for the time being, and please email me directly cause unless I come back I will not know if you answered.





Please give me just one example of where life has ever 'just started' on its own. Now you cant use the miller experiment, cause they don't even teach that in school anymore it was so bogus. so please, just one example of life that has started on its own.

Answer 15

evolution within a species is not in any real dispute among the scientifically enlightened.

but evolution as an origin of new species does not meet any of the ordinary definitions of science.

it has not been observed, or reproduced or tested and none of its predictions are known to have transpired.

Answer 16

You're lucky Em Adjinari doesn't come around anymore...

Answer 17

You should also specify that they can't cite the bible.

I still can't wait to see the garbage spew.

Answer 18

I can only think of one:



If people have evolved high intelligence then how come there are still creationists.

Answer 19

There is none, or the theory would be out the window.

Answer 20

If cowboy boots came from cows, why are there still cows???

Answer 21

What about natural selection? As the Dutch botanist, Hugo de Vries, said, “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.” That statement is just as true today.



Natural selection is God’s way of preserving the original created kinds of plants and animals, so they can adapt to their environment.



Natural selection is a logical process that anyone can observe (and it was actually a creationist named Edward Blyth who seems to have first wrote about it in 1835–37, before Darwin). We can look at the great variation in an animal kind and see the results of natural selection. For instance, wolves, coyotes, and dingoes have developed over time as a result of natural selection operating on the information in the genes of the dog kind.



But there are limits. For instance, you can’t breed a dog to the size of an elephant, much less turn it into an elephant. Natural and artificial selection can only operate on the information already contained in the genes; it doesn’t produce new information.



The different dogs we see today have resulted from a rearrangement or loss of information from the original dog kind. That is why you can breed wolves to get to chihuahuas, but you can’t breed chihuahuas to get to wolves. The new breeds of dogs have much less genetic information and variability.



And the thing is, what are they? Dogs. What were they? Dogs. What will they be? Dogs. The same could be said for Darwin’s finches, peppered moths, and so forth. There is a big difference between subspeciation (variation within a kind) and transspeciation (change from one kind to another).



Natural selection explains how the dogs can adapt and survive in different environments, not where the dogs came from in the first place.



Now, to go from that first single celled organism to a human means finding a way to generate enormous amounts of new information—and not just any jumble of chemical sequences, but meaningful information. You need the recipes to build eyes, nerves, skin, bones, muscles, blood, etc. Without a way to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution. Evolutionists now agree with this and so they point to mutations (copying errors in the genetic code) to provide the new information for natural selection to act upon; this is called “neo-Darwinian evolution.” So, the question is, can random mutations produce real evolutionary changes? Do they really explain that postulated change from fish to philosopher.



Obviously the evolutionists try to argue against this, but listen to what some scientists have said.



Dr. Lee Spetner (a biophysicist who taught at John Hopkins University) in his book Not By Chance analyzes examples of mutations that evolutionists have claimed to have been increases in information, and shows that they are actually examples of loss of specificity, which means they involved loss of information. He concluded, “All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.”



He also said, “The neo-Darwinians would like us to believe that large evolutionary changes can result from a series of small events if there are enough of them. But if these events all lose information they can’t be the steps in the kind of evolution the NDT [Neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed to explain, no matter how many mutations there are. Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up in volume.”



Dr. Ray Bohlin (who has a Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology) said, “We see the apparent inability of mutations truly to contribute to the origin of new structures. The theory of gene duplication in its present form is unable to account for the origin of new genetic information—a must for any theory of evolutionary mechanism.”



And Dr. Werner Gitt (an information scientist who was a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology), in answering the question (Can new information originate through mutations?) said, “...this idea is central in representations of evolution, but mutations can only cause changes in existing information. There can be no increase in information, and in general the results are injurious. New blueprints for new functions or new organs cannot arise; mutations cannot be the source of new (creative) information.”



Mutations can cause an increase in amount of DNA, but we don’t see them causing an increase in the amount of functional genetic information.



Even the somewhat beneficial mutations they point to (like antibiotic resistance in bacteria) are really only a rearrangement or loss of information, never a gain.



For instance, a mutation that causes the pumps in its cell membrane not to work in a certain way so it doesn’t suck in the antibiotics we try to kill it with. You see, it is resistant because of a loss of an ability. Another mutation might change a binding site used by the antibiotic within the bacteria, rendering it unable to kill the bacteria. In no known case is antibiotic resistance the result of new genetic information. They have a survival advantage in a hospital, but are actually defective and can’t compete as well with ordinary bacteria. As Dr. Carl Wieland says, we shouldn’t call them “supergerms” but rather “superwimps.”



Sickle-cell anemia is often used as an example to support evolution, but the mutation causes a loss of normal function with no new ability or information. The protection against malaria comes at the high cost of a less functional hemoglobin molecule.



Wingless beetles on a windy island and blind cave fish may have a survival advantage, but it comes from a loss of information.



This kind of stuff is used as evidence for evolution, but in every mutation (even the beneficial ones), this seems to always be the case. As Dr. Michael Behe (who has a Ph.D. in Biochemistry) said, “...most evolutionary changes are ones which either break or degrade genes—and these are the helpful mutations! But you can’t build new molecular machinery by breaking genes.”



It’s pretty sad, but many of the so called “evidences of evolution” actually show the opposite of evolution—information decrease. All we see is a downhill change that fits with the fall in Genesis 3, headed in the wrong direction. As Biologist Dr. Gary Parker said in his discussion of mutations, “Even more serious is the fact that mutations are ‘going the wrong way’ as far as evolution is concerned. Almost every mutation we know is identified by the disease or abnormality that it causes . . . In other words, time, chance, and random changes do just what we normally expect: tear things down and make matters worse.” Mutations are one of the consequences of God’s curse on creation because of Adam’s sin.



Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into more advanced forms.



OK, what about homology? Don’t we see similarity in the anatomy and physiology of different animals? Sure we do. Evolutionists like to argue that these similarities prove that all life evolved from a common ancestor (common descent).



First of all, there are plenty of problems—like homologous structures that are not produced by homologous genes or the same embryological development, or homologous structures in animals that are not suppose to have a close common ancestor (no evolutionary relationship), and so forth.



But the thing is, homology can just as easily point to a common designer; it fits quite comfortably with the creation model.



As Dr. Don Batten has said, “Think about the original Porsche and a Volkswagen ‘Beetle’ cars. They both had air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear, independent rear suspension, two doors, trunk in the front, and many other similarities. Why did these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer!”



And as Dr. Jerry Bergman said, “...the requirements of life are similar for similar living things, and some designs are preferred in constructing animals because these designs are superior to competing designs. All automobile, bicycle and pushcart tires are round because this design is superior for the function of most tires. A tire homology does not prove common descent, but common design by engineers throughout history because of the superiority of the round structure for rolling.”



It has been asked, “Do evolutionists conclude that bicycles, cars, and airplanes all have wheels because they all started out as tricycles?”



Dr. Carl Weiland said, “By its very nature, creation involves the intelligent application of design information, which it would seem logical to conserve. For example, if the pattern of the forelimb bones in a frog works well, following good bioengineering principles, then it would seem reasonable for the same principles to be used in the other creatures, modified to fit their particular needs.”

Answer 22

what kind of evolution do you mean micro evolution or macro evolution?

Answer 23

No, thanks.



By the way, it's "rather than," not "rather then."

Answer 24

Well, for starters. . . .



1. The evolution of one kind into another kind is not happening in a measurable way in the present, nor can it be proven to have occurred in the past.



2. No new kinds of organisms are being observed coming from previously existing organisms. (We discover new kinds that we have never cataloged before, but this only shows our ignorance of their existence.)



3. No new structures or organs have been observed coming into existence. All observed structures or organs are fully formed when first observed. (The only observed changes to current structures or organs come from their decay and degradation.)



4. There are distinct gaps between the known kinds of organisms. One kind is not observed to change into another kind. We do not observe the "missing links" because they are missing, not there, don't exist.



5. Life only comes from life and reproduces after its own kind. Life does not come from non-living material. Life does not spontaneously generate itself.



6. Mutations, the supposed driving mechanisms of evolution, are random in nature and are neutral or harmful. They do not accumulate beneficially. Mutations produce the wrong kind of change and will not provide for the upward progressive increase in intelligence or complexity required by evolutionists.



7. We observe stasis, not change, in nature. Extinction is a proof of creation. We do not find change in the fossil record nor can we measure it in the present. Animal and plant kinds that exist today retain the same appearance but are smaller in size than their known predecessors.



8. The fossil layers are not found in the ground in the nice neat clean order that evolutionists illustrate them to be in their textbooks. There is not one place on the surface of the earth where you may dig straight down and pass through the fossil layers in the order shown in the textbooks. The neat order of one layer upon another does not exist in nature. The fossil bearing layers are actually found out of order, upside down (backwards according to evolutionary theory), missing (from where evolutionists would expect them to be) or interlaced ("younger" and "older" layers found in repeating sequences). "Out of place" fossils are the rule and not the exception throughout the fossil record.



9. Polystrate fossils, fossils which penetrate two or more layers of the fossil record (most often trees), are common throughout the fossil record. In rare cases even large animal skeletons have been found in vertical position rather than in a horizontal position.



10. Life forms are found to be complex even in the "oldest" layers of the fossil record. For example, various species of Trilobites are found to have very sophisticated eyesight. Yet evolutionists say that these creatures supposedly evolved into existence when the first multiple celled life forms began to evolve some 620 million supposed years ago.



11. Nature does not provide us with the proof for the "Tree of Life" so glibly talked about by evolutionists. We do not find life starting as simple and then branching upward and outward as it becomes more and more complex. We do not find that life forms follow the pattern of a single tree trunk with many branches. The physical evidence provided by nature gives a picture of an extremely large orchard with all plant and animal types represented from the beginning with their own individual trunks and branches producing the variations within kinds that we have today, but no new kinds progressing from previous kinds.



12. There are no transitional forms found in the fossil record. In spite of all the reports people may have heard, we have never found the fossil of a plant or an animal which is a true intermediate form. The "missing links" are missing because they are missing.



13. Be wary of artists renderings. An artists depiction, conception or illustration is imaginary. Simply because we see an artists illustration of a cow becoming a whale doesn't make it so. Human desire and imagination are not evidence.



14. Ancient man was not primitive. Ancient human cultures had more complex languages than we do today. The engineering feats of the past cultures are well recognized and in some cases have not been duplicated in modern times. There never was a Stone Age, Bronze Age or Iron Age. Man has used stone, bronze and iron tools in all ages of past human activity. Indeed, there is nothing new under the sun.



The observed Laws of Science contradict the various theories of evolution.



15. The law of Cause and Effect not only describes that for every effect there must have been a cause, it also tells us that the cause must be greater than the effect. No one can create anything greater than themselves. You do not get an increase in intelligence or complexity without the input from a greater intelligence.



16. The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics work contrary to evolutionary belief. The First Law of Thermodynamics (The Law of Energy Conservation) proves that the universe cannot be the reason for its own existence. According to the First Law the universe cannot have been anything less than it is, and if it cannot have been anything less than it is, it had to come into existence whole and complete. If the universe came into existence whole and complete, then it had to be created. Simply adding energy to a system will not cause an increase in intelligence or complexity. The addition of undirected energy to a system accomplishes nothing, except possibly for the destruction of that system.



The Second Law of Thermodynamics (The Law of Entropy) proves that evolution cannot happen. The Second Law stipulates (a poor attempt by scientists to describe The Curse of Genesis Chapter 3 and Revelation) that in all activities some of the energy becomes unavailable for further useful work. The universe is running down, not up.



17. The concept of a "Big Bang" producing the universe is absolutely illogical. Explosions do not produce ever increasing order and structure. Explosions produce disorder and chaos. Explosions break things down or destroy what was previously ordered.



18. There is no substantiated method in nature which would allow stars to be "born." The Gas Laws prove that the pressure of hot gases expanding outward from a center is far greater than the gravitational force drawing them towards a center. Stars could not evolve into existence.



19. The Law of Biogenesis (the Law of Life Beginnings) accurately states that life only comes from life, and that life only reproduces after its own kind. Life cannot spontaneously generate and life forms do not change from one kind into another kind.



20. The input of undirected energy accomplishes nothing. The input of undirected energy will destroy a system, not build it up. Only the input from a greater intelligence will cause a beneficial increase in order and/or complexity.



21. Not only must there be the input from a greater intelligence in order to produce an increase in complexity and/or intelligence, that intelligence must have a preconceived plan of action. No master craftsman would start to build without first having a plan, a blueprint.



22. In order for evolution to be true atoms must form useful molecules such as enzymes, amino acids and proteins by random chance. It is mathematically impossible for these molecules, much less the far larger DNA molecule, to form by random action in nature. It cannot happen!



23. Natural selection and survival of the fittest are supposed to be the driving forces of progressive upward evolution. There are no selective benefits for a supposed transitional form. There would be no advantage for a creature to have a half-evolved eye or a half-evolved wing. Indeed, the existence of such structures would be detrimental and serve only to eliminate, not perpetuate, such disfigured organisms from a given population.



24. The presumed intermediates required by evolution do not exist. The missing links are missing because they are missing. Reptilian scales do not/cannot become feathers. These structures originate from different cells within the skin tissue. Reptilian lungs do not/cannot change to become avian (bird) lungs. Air flows in and out of reptilian lungs just as in humans. Bird lungs have a flow through design.



25. Living organisms are incredibly complex and have specific design features. In order to make this point please consider the following partial list: woodpecker tongue, Bombardier Beetle chemistry, insect metamorphosis, Giraffe heart and arterial system, Gecko feet and human eyes (or human brains for that matter).



26. Single-celled organisms such as bacteria, amoeba and algae have the same degree of complexity within them that multiple-celled organisms have within them. Single-celled organisms have a skeleton, respiratory system, digestion and elimination systems, circulatory system, reproductive system, command and communication system.



27. Life forms are irreducibly complex. To code for RNA production within a cell you must already have whole and complete DNA. To make DNA you must already have whole and complete RNA. In addition, it requires about 70 proteins to fabricate a DNA molecule, but you must have whole and complete DNA to fabricate those proteins.



28. When we see design we know that there is/was a designer. The human mind intrinsically knows the difference between randomness and design. When we see a plastic hair comb, one of the simplest structures ever designed and consisting of only one part, we know that it was designed and made through intelligent effort. A plastic hair comb does not come into existence by random chance.



If we see three stones sitting on the bottom of a clear stream we know that they got there by the random action of the water current. If we see the same three stones piled up one on top of the other sitting on the bank of that stream we know that an outside intelligence placed them there.



We see design throughout nature. For good health blood must clot when it gets outside the body, but must not clot inside the body. In addition, it must stop clotting and not continue to clot once exposed to the outside. The molecular motors which turn the cilia of cells look exactly like little electric motors complete with bearings, shaft and housing. Our bodies must make decisions to accept or reject foreign substances or our immunological system does not work. Our bodies must also manufacture effective countermeasures without killing us at the same time.



29. Charles Darwin stated that the existence of vestigial and retrogressive organs and structures in the human body were essential proofs of evolution. It has now been determined that there are NO vestigial or retrogressive organs or structures in a human body!



30. Evolutionary theories remain incapable of explaining the existence of sex, symbiosis or altruism.