Replies

There is evidence against the theory. here are some things to consider.

1. Natural selection is not a strong enough force to have changed us from bacteria to humans even over a zillion years. How come other animals/beings (like other bacteria) havent changed? What was wrong with their natural selection?

2. The idea of evolution just being completely random doesn't wash. There has to be an Intelligent Force controlling it.

3. There was an issue with the propellors on the first organisms (one-celled.) The organism could not exist without the propellor, it could not survive, but the propellor had to have been brought about by natural selection, which couldnt have happened unless the organism was alive, which it couldnt be, if it didnt have the propellor.

4.According to the theory of evolution, in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life. How'd that happen, what caused it, what caused that, and how did the chemicals and other elements get there?

5. Why do we still have appendixes?

6. If evolution is caused by mutations, why are most mutations malignant and negative?

7. "Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened:
• Scales had to have mutated into hair.
• Breasts had to have evolved from nothing.
• Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb.

• It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures.

• Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.

--There are many creatures that defy evolution. All of the examples below illustrate complex and sophisticated biological structures. It is difficult to believe that these creatures could have evolved, since all of their systems had to have been in place at the start for them to survive. Angler Fish; Chicken Egg
Beaver; Giraffe
Black And Yellow Garden Spider; Incubator Bird
Bombardier Beetle; Woodpecker

more to come if I have time...

I recall you posting that list on a previous discussion, and I responded to it then, however you did not provide a response to my rebuttal of your alleged evidences against the theory. In case you missed it, I will repeat my answers here, so that you may consider revising and further supporting your claims before repeating them again.

1. Natural selection is not a strong enough force to have changed us from bacteria to humans even over a zillion years.

Actually, the time frame is approximately 4.5 billion years. In fact, I do not believe that "zillion" is a number.

How come other animals/beings (like other bacteria) havent changed?

Most of them have changed. Those that have not simply have not needed to change in order to continue existing through successive generations.

What was wrong with their natural selection?

Nothing is "wrong". Natural selection has no implicit goal or direction. A lack of change over generations in a population of organisms merely indicates that the organisms are well-adapted for successful reproduction within their environment.

2. The idea of evolution just being completely random doesn't wash.

Evolution is not completely random. The mutations that occur to change traits of an organism are random, however the selection process is based upon that organism's ability to successfuly reproduce in their environment. This is not a random event, as their are specific definable factors within each environment and organism.

There has to be an Intelligent Force controlling it.

This is an appeal to incredulity, and a logical fallacy. Merely being unable to comprehend how a process can occur without an "Intelligent Force" controlling the event does not actually necessitate such a force.

3. There was an issue with the propellors on the first organisms (one-celled.) The organism could not exist without the propellor, it could not survive, but the propellor had to have been brought about by natural selection, which couldnt have happened unless the organism was alive, which it couldnt be, if it didnt have the propellor.

I believe that you are referring to the "flagellum". Responses to claims that a flagellum could not have formed without intelligent intervention are found here. I will also note that the man who brought forth the claim of the flagellum requiring intelligent intervention himself accepts common descent as the most likely explanation as to how diverse life emerged. He merely believes that an intelligent agent intervened at various times to adjust the organisms.

4.According to the theory of evolution, in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life. How'd that happen, what caused it, what caused that, and how did the chemicals and other elements get there?

The theory of evolution only explains events that occur within systems of reproducing organisms. While the question of the ultimate origin of reproducing organisms is valid, and a field of study for many biologists, it is not one that can be answered within the scope of the theory of evolution, as the mechanics of the theory do not apply. For the same reason, the theory of evolution cannot address the ultimate origins of matter, including the components that make up the first organisms. This is not a weakness of the theory; rather, it is a recognition of the scope of the theory's explanatory power, and an understanding that the theory cannot be used to address questions beyond its scope.

5. Why do we still have appendixes?

Why should we not? Thus far their continued presence has not created a sufficient reproductive disadvantage to pressure their removal from our species.

6. If evolution is caused by mutations, why are most mutations malignant and negative?

Most mutations are actually neutral. Other mutations are either beneficial or harmful depending on environmental conditions. Mutations that are absolutely harmful do not factor into evolution, as the organisms with such mutations will not successfully reproduce. In fact, in many cases such harmful mutations prevent a viable organism from forming in the first place. The existence of harmful mutations does not in any way disprove evolution. The only means by which mutations could disprove evolution is if it can be demonstrated that there are absolutely no mutations that are ever in any way beneficial for an organism.

• It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures.

I do not understand why you place a laboratory requirement. Not all scientific observation is done within a laboratory. Moreover, evolution has been observed through successive generations of populations, even to the point of speciation.

• Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.

There are two problems with this statement. First, Fred Hoyle was not referring to the process of evolution, but rather the process of a single cell forming where none existed before. As I said earlier, this process would not be evolution, but abiogenesis, and would not be addressed by the theory of evolution. The second problem is that as an astronomer, Fred Hoyle did not have the qualifications to construct such a probability argument. In fact, without knowing all of the initial conditions of pre-life earth, it is impossible for even well-researched biologists are unable to know enough variables to formulate a specific probability calculation.

It should also be noted that Fred Hoyle never disputed the theory of evolution. He simply believed that the first life forms from which evolution started were seeded to Earth from space. --There are many creatures that defy evolution. All of the examples below illustrate complex and sophisticated biological structures. It is difficult to believe that these creatures could have evolved, since all of their systems had to have been in place at the start for them to survive.
Angler Fish; Chicken Egg
Beaver; Giraffe
Black And Yellow Garden Spider; Incubator Bird
Bombardier Beetle; Woodpecker

Please explain how the above creatures "defy" evolution. If you prefer to keep your response and research less exhaustive, select one or two from the list and explain them.

"There is evidence against the theory. here are some things to consider.

1. Natural selection is not a strong enough force to have changed us from bacteria to humans even over a zillion years. How come other animals/beings (like other bacteria) havent changed? What was wrong with their natural selection?
You evidence that evolution is BS is that you claim natural section isn't strong enough? Who says that? Other bacteria do evolve, quite frequently and much faster than humans. Many infectus diseases are evolving to become immune to antibotics.
2. The idea of evolution just being completely random doesn't wash. There has to be an Intelligent Force controlling it.
It isn't random at all. Evolution occurs when a single member of a species is mutated, and that mutation makes it better at surviving. This is natural selection 101 here. Take this over millons of years and you get radical changes, that cause species to adapt to their enviroment.
3. There was an issue with the propellors on the first organisms (one-celled.) The organism could not exist without the propellor, it could not survive, but the propellor had to have been brought about by natural selection, which couldnt have happened unless the organism was alive, which it couldnt be, if it didnt have the propellor.
One celled organisms were alive.
4.According to the theory of evolution, in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life. How'd that happen, what caused it, what caused that, and how did the chemicals and other elements get there?
What causes chemical reactions to occur now? Chemical reactions happen all the time, there doesn't need to be a reason. The elements got on earth just like all heavy elements got on earth. Its space dust. These elements bond together due to the laws of physics. Chemistry 101 at any univeristy should cover that. If you want to go more indepth with that, take a quantum mechanics course.
5. Why do we still have appendixes?
Why not? Your projecting your simple view of the world on reality. There is not plan for evolution. Evolution is not a force, its a result. We have appendixes because at one point they were a funcitioning organ. Now they aren't, but there is no reason for them to disappear. When someone is born with a mutation (this probably already happened) that causes him to not be born with an appendix he will pass it along to his children. In a couple million years some humans will have appendixes and some won't. If for some reason appendixes hurt our chances are reproduction then those with them would be less likely to survive to pass on the gene to their children. Thats how evolution works
6. If evolution is caused by mutations, why are most mutations malignant and negative?
Why does gravity attract instead of repel? It just does. Thats not proof that Evolution isn't a good theory.
7. "Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened:
• Scales had to have mutated into hair.
• Breasts had to have evolved from nothing.
• Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb.
They had millions of years to develop. These things didn't happen at once, or even in a short amount of time.
• It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures.
You would have to study thousands of generations of the spiecies, and introduce a major change in enviroment. Like I said earlier diseases have evolved into new strains that are resistant to antibotics. That it self is evidence that the theory of evolution is pretty accurate.
• Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.
One mans opinion. There are many who would disagree. Plus the chances of evolution in constant enviroment are incredibly small. However over a long time it does happen.
--There are many creatures that defy evolution. All of the examples below illustrate complex and sophisticated biological structures. It is difficult to believe that these creatures could have evolved, since all of their systems had to have been in place at the start for them to survive. Angler Fish; Chicken Egg
Beaver; Giraffe
Black And Yellow Garden Spider; Incubator Bird
Bombardier Beetle; Woodpecker
Why did these animals need to have a starting place setup for them? Because you said they did? I believe Giraffes evolved from the same animal that horses did.
more to come if I have time..."

It appears that you have done some reading of the creationist sources but have not ventured to consult scientific sources that refute your conceptions. I'll do what little I can to give you information you may not have.

Before I answer some of your questions I will mention that evolution does not state that something comes from nothing.

As far back as the earliest single celled organism DNA has been the recipe organisms have been using to reproduce themselves. The recipe is a simple set of steps of what to do with availible raw material and energy. The language used by DNA is the language of chemistry and the tendency that molecules have for being attracted to some molecules but not to others. In many cases these molecules can combine in only one way dependent on the energy available.

Every change wrought by evolution is based on the existing state of the organism's DNA and the features and functions that result from that DNA. No new feature suddenly appears but is either a previously existing feature that has developed new functions or is the result of a duplication of an existing feature followed by a change in function. Both gene duplication, and mutations in control genes such as the HOX genes, can result in additional instances of an existing feature being expressed. This has been shown in the lab where additional wings, additional segments such as body segments in insects or additional segments such as vertebrae have been triggered in a number of organisms through HOX gene mutations and/or gene additions.

Once an additional feature is added it may change its function over a number of generations during which time its appearance may also change in step with the changing function. This is observed in simple adaptation.

"1. Natural selection is not a strong enough force to have changed us from bacteria to humans even over a zillion years. How come other animals/beings (like other bacteria) havent changed? What was wrong with their natural selection?

First off, there are very few if any organisms that have not changed. Even those extant organisms that we have records extending back millions of years for are not the same as they were at a given time in their history.

The very basis of selection is change - if the environment changes the organism will change as long as its current adaptive personality does not work well in the new environment.

Some environments have changed very little, such as oceanic vents and sulfur pools near volcanic vents. Animals well adapted to those ecologies are affected less by environmental based selection but are still open to genetic drift and other forms of selection such as sexual selection (only if a sexually reproducing organism). If the organism is not prone to those other types of selection then a stable environment will not select out any but deleterious changes. In this case selection is actually acting to keep the organism the same.

As far as changing from single celled to multi-celled organisms such as humans, natural selection is not alone. Such things as drift and a number of other selection forces are also at work.

Mutations occur in all replications, this is shown in virii and bacteria as well as in humans and other animals. The vast majority of mutations are neutral either because they affect a non-coding section of the genome or the change expressed by the mutated gene is invisible to selection. This means that selection does not select for or against the change.

A small minority of mutations are deleterious, most of these are selected out by preventing the owner from replicating. An even smaller minority of mutations are beneficial where they give the owner a minor advantage in the current environment, but enough of an advantage to increase the percentage that genetic line occupies in the population.

Some of those mutations include addition of DNA material, both non-coding and coding. As long as this increase in size of genome and coding DNA occurs, the number of features will increase. Remember that DNA is a set of recipe instructions not the actual material needed to construct a body so even a small increase in DNA can result in large morphological changes. Because of this observed increase in genomic material natural selection does not encourage radical changes in morphology but actually attenuates it. Without selection the variation in organisms would be higher than it is currently .

My wife is waving at me to put the computer down so if you want I will attempt to answer your other points tomorrow.