Jump to content

I've lost my faith to evolution


john13
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've lost my faith on evolution and here are some reasons why

 

1)Science cannot explain how could this process start with a "naturalistic" way.Abiogenesis(a hypothesis that life could be formed without the aid of a creator)has never been observed.But even if a type of Abiogenesis occured it would be impossible for this piece of life to survive alone on a hostile environment.But even if it could survive it would be impossible for this piece of Life to start reproducing asexually by luck.And even more nightmarish is how could sexual reproduction start.How the male, female copy emerged?In general this process is impossible to have started without the aid of an intelligent force.It would be cool if aliens made a single visit on this planet,started the process of evolution and left the place but i dont think this happened

 

2)Living fossils.Species dont evolve for hundreds of millions of years and, in the case of microorganisms, for billions of years.Current scientific theories claim that, for example, more complex eyes were "selected for" and species that evolved these eyes managed to survive by killing their opponents.Videos cite mollusk eyes as an example of evolution of simpler to more complex eyes.

Fact:Mollusks never evolved better vision(and they have survived unchanged despite their bad vision,for hundreds of millions of years).Why natural selection didnt elimanated mollusks for their bad vision?And if they managed to survive despite their bad vision why should we hypothesize that our vision was a result of natural selection?There is zero evidence that better eyes were "selected for".

 

3)Irreducible complexity.Science has rejected this claiming that it is a creationist invention.However what evolved first?The blood or the heart?The mouth or the digestive system?Actually there are countless examples like these that show that organisms are impossible to have evolved

 

4)Convergent evolution.Many unrelated species show similar traits.Bats, birds, incests all of them fly yet they are unrelated.Theories claim that when an organism developed vision he managed to kill its opponents and his trait survived. The same happened with hearing, smell etc etc.The current theories claim that all our traits came from a single organism who randomly mutated these traits.But convergent evolution debunks this and shows that traits occured on species independently.Mollusks and turtles both have "private houses" yet they are completely unrelated.How could this sophisticated trait emerge on two different species with neo darwinian evolution?

 

5)Current scientific theories claim that evolution is blind.That microorganisms might remain microorganisms but they could also evolve to dinosaurs.But there are things that cannot evolve with blind evolution.Example:Snake poison.How could a blind process create such a sophisticated poison?How could a blind process built in small steps a private house for turtles?You either have this shell that protects you or you dont.

 

Fossil record shows either extinct species, species that look similar to current species and species that have survived unchanged.

 

Darwin claimed that evolution happens with small steps.Fossil record has debunked Darwin.So science invented a theory named punctuated equilibrium in which it is supposed that the change of some species is so rapid that we couldnt track their change on the fossil record.But with a theory you cant cover the truth that the fossil record has debunked Darwinian theories

 

Bty i am not religious and i dont want science to proclaim that "God did it".But after all that i have lost my faith on evolution and i suspect that something else is going on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not an expert, but I'll give it a shot.

 

2)Living fossils.Species dont evolve for hundreds of millions of years and, in the case of microorganisms, for billions of years.Current scientific theories claim that, for example, more complex eyes were "selected for" and species that evolved these eyes managed to survive by killing their opponents.Videos cite mollusk eyes as an example of evolution of simpler to more complex eyes.

Fact:Mollusks never evolved better vision(and they have survived unchanged despite their bad vision,for hundreds of millions of years).Why natural selection didnt elimanated mollusks for their bad vision?And if they managed to survive despite their bad vision why should we hypothesize that our vision was a result of natural selection?There is zero evidence that better eyes were "selected for".

Why would they change if there was no pressure? A relatively stable environment would yield a relatively stable niche.

 

3)Irreducible complexity.Science has rejected this claiming that it is a creationist invention.However what evolved first?The blood or the heart?The mouth or the digestive system?Actually there are countless examples like these that show that organisms are impossible to have evolved

Irreducible complexity was a prediction of evolution long before it was declared a problem by Behe. It's called the Müllerian Two Step.

 

Step 1: Add a component;

 

Step 2: Make it necessary.

 

Indeed, Müller introduced this concept way back in 1918, and did so in the following scientific paper:

 

Genetic Variability, Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors by Hermann Joseph Müller, Genetics, 3(5): 422-499 (1918)

 

 

4)Convergent evolution.Many unrelated species show similar traits.Bats, birds, incests all of them fly yet they are unrelated.Theories claim that when an organism developed vision he managed to kill its opponents and his trait survived. The same happened with hearing, smell etc etc.The current theories claim that all our traits came from a single organism who randomly mutated these traits.But convergent evolution debunks this and shows that traits occured on species independently.Mollusks and turtles both have "private houses" yet they are completely unrelated.How could this sophisticated trait emerge on two different species with neo darwinian evolution?

Why must it be either or? In fact, we can tell which shared traits are from common ancestry and which are from convergent evolution.

 

Bty i am not religious and i dont want science to proclaim that "God did it".But after all that i have lost my faith on evolution and i suspect that something else is going on

I'm going to go ahead and say you're either blatantly lying, or never actually tried to learn about evolution as you appear completely ignorant of even the basics. Try giving learning a go. Below are some useful links.

What is evolution?

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

Index to Creationist Claims

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see why you lost your faith because without any knowledge that is all you could have had. I don't think I have ever seen as many incorrect statements about evolutionary theory in one place before. On a science site, this has to be a troll. SM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry no troll.Darwin claimed that evolution comes with small steps.Instead we have zero evolution on many species.To cover the failure science invented the theory of punctuated equilibrium.Also Darwin claimed that all traits we have like eyes, ears etc etc came by a single ancestor that randomly mutated and his trait was selected for.But Convergent evolution debunks this and shows that unrelated species developed similar traits

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry no troll.Darwin claimed that evolution comes with small steps.Instead we have zero evolution on many species.To cover the failure science invented the theory of punctuated equilibrium.Also Darwin claimed that all traits we have like eyes, ears etc etc came by a single ancestor that randomly mutated and his trait was selected for.But Convergent evolution debunks this and shows that unrelated species developed similar traits

 

!

Moderator Note

Critiquing a theory you do not understand = moved to speculations

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've lost my faith on evolution and here are some reasons why

 

1)Science cannot explain how could this process start with a "naturalistic" way.Abiogenesis(a hypothesis that life could be formed without the aid of a creator)has never been observed.But even if a type of Abiogenesis occured it would be impossible for this piece of life to survive alone on a hostile environment.But even if it could survive it would be impossible for this piece of Life to start reproducing asexually by luck.And even more nightmarish is how could sexual reproduction start.How the male, female copy emerged?In general this process is impossible to have started without the aid of an intelligent force.It would be cool if aliens made a single visit on this planet,started the process of evolution and left the place but i dont think this happened

 

Abiogenesis is not evolutionary theory, as such it should not be in any conversation regarding your faith in evolution.

 

In what ways do you think that early earth was hostile to early life? If it has to do with oxidation in our current atmosphere, the level of Oxygen was dramatically lower before photosynthesis started processing it. There have been quite a few experiments to show that organic molecules could have easily been created on early Earth. Although the probability of them combining to an organism is low it is still possible, and indeed obviously happened. As to your belief that reproduction and sex couldn't happen without a god, read some theories on that because my explaining it would be useless if you have no prior understanding of how these things work.

 

2)Living fossils.Species dont evolve for hundreds of millions of years and, in the case of microorganisms, for billions of years.Current scientific theories claim that, for example, more complex eyes were "selected for" and species that evolved these eyes managed to survive by killing their opponents.Videos cite mollusk eyes as an example of evolution of simpler to more complex eyes.

Fact:Mollusks never evolved better vision(and they have survived unchanged despite their bad vision,for hundreds of millions of years).Why natural selection didnt elimanated mollusks for their bad vision?And if they managed to survive despite their bad vision why should we hypothesize that our vision was a result of natural selection?There is zero evidence that better eyes were "selected for".

 

Why would mollusks need better eyes? Evolution doesn't work just because it might make an improvement. It is not a conscious being that thinks, "hey I know how I could improve this!" Actually your mollusk example refutes a creator/designer more than it disproves evolution. Why would a designer make an animal with crappy eyes? Evolution embodies the good enough way of doing things. If the animal survives and reproduces than its job is done.

 

3)Irreducible complexity.Science has rejected this claiming that it is a creationist invention.However what evolved first?The blood or the heart?The mouth or the digestive system?Actually there are countless examples like these that show that organisms are impossible to have evolved

 

Even though this is logical fallacy at its best I'll try to walk you through a thought process. Blood is a way to get oxygen to a system that need aerobic processes to make different products like ATP. The heart is a pump the moves the blood through a large body so that the oxygen gets to where it is needed. Since blood is just water with different chemicals, for this example I will just use hemoglobin, that carry oxygen, an animal with a small enough body would not need a heart to get the oxygen were it needs to be. Or an animal could use a different why to get oxygen to parts of the body, some animals have pores in their skin/exoskeleton used to receive oxygen. So some sort of 'blood' would have probably been used first. All that with just logic, not even needing an example of an animal without a heart.

 

For the digestion system, even single celled organism have simple digestive systems so you don't need a mouth. For every one of your 'countless examples' there is a counter example.

 

4)Convergent evolution.Many unrelated species show similar traits.Bats, birds, incests all of them fly yet they are unrelated.Theories claim that when an organism developed vision he managed to kill its opponents and his trait survived. The same happened with hearing, smell etc etc.The current theories claim that all our traits came from a single organism who randomly mutated these traits.But convergent evolution debunks this and shows that traits occured on species independently.Mollusks and turtles both have "private houses" yet they are completely unrelated.How could this sophisticated trait emerge on two different species with neo darwinian evolution?

 

ALL animals are related. Let me say that again so you remember, ALL animals are related. Nothing in evolutionary theory says one animal killed the other, it outproduced its competitors. You say that current evolution disproves previous evolution, neither of which you believe in? Putting aside that craziness, how does convergent evolution disprove that the same trait may have been selected for in another animal at another time? Another case of irreducible complexity? What in evolutionary theory says two species cannot evolve in a similar fashion, utilizing similar traits?

 

5)Current scientific theories claim that evolution is blind.That microorganisms might remain microorganisms but they could also evolve to dinosaurs.But there are things that cannot evolve with blind evolution.Example:Snake poison.How could a blind process create such a sophisticated poison?How could a blind process built in small steps a private house for turtles?You either have this shell that protects you or you dont.

 

This is irreducible complexity as well, why try to make the same point twice? Do you really believe that part of a shell wouldn't be helpful? In that case a bullet proof vest would be pointless since it doesn't cover all of the vital areas. Your argument of a blind person making things is idiotic. You are assuming your belief that a consciousness must be to blame, and if that consciousness couldn't see it couldn't work. Why exactly is a snakes venom irreducibly complex and/or useless unless it has evolved to its present form. Are you saying that a poison or venom that only slows or sickens another wouldn't help a species get food or avoid becoming food?

 

Fossil record shows either extinct species, species that look similar to current species and species that have survived unchanged.

 

Darwin claimed that evolution happens with small steps.Fossil record has debunked Darwin.So science invented a theory named punctuated equilibrium in which it is supposed that the change of some species is so rapid that we couldnt track their change on the fossil record.But with a theory you cant cover the truth that the fossil record has debunked Darwinian theories

 

You realize that this is the way all science works right? Newtonian physics didn't work to explain subatomic particles so, by your logic, everything Newton ever did is now worthless and we should no longer use anything he discovered. Goodbye calculus.

 

I think you would regain faith in evolution as long as you always remember Orgel's second rule "Evolution is cleverer than you are."

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also Darwin claimed that all traits we have like eyes, ears etc etc came by a single ancestor that randomly mutated and his trait was selected for.But Convergent evolution debunks this and shows that unrelated species developed similar traits

Why can't both be true?

 

Some traits come from common ancestry, some come from convergence. It's perfectly plausible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is fair to say that you've been hearing only one side of the story, and from people who are quite frequently willing to lie, mislead, and hide the facts (this can be seen in the difficulty of finding a primary reference for the claims made). If these people have nothing to hide, why are they hiding all the evidence they claim to have and wanting you to take them at their word, and substituting data with rhetoric? Get yourself the other side of the story: go here and search for the terms in the creationist claim: http://talkorigins.o...ins/search.html . There you will find a response to the claims, and probably also some primary references so you can verify that what they say is true. Who do you usually believe: the one eagerly pointing you toward the data or the one that hides the data and makes claims you can't verify?

 

Even better, if the creationists aren't lying bastards then why are they focusing on pretending there are holes in evolution theory as if that verified their own theory, when they should be showing data in support of their theory? For example, those who claim to believe the biblical flood story don't then go on to do a genetic analysis on species showing a global genetic bottleneck occurring 4000 years ago to a population size of 2 (and 14 for the clean animals and birds), as per the flood story? This would prove their claims to absurd levels of certainty, yet the ignore supporting their own claims and substitute trying to find flaws in their opponents'. Why? Because they know damn well it would disprove their claims.

 

I've lost my faith on evolution and here are some reasons why

 

1)Science cannot explain how could this process start with a "naturalistic" way.Abiogenesis(a hypothesis that life could be formed without the aid of a creator)has never been observed.But even if a type of Abiogenesis occured it would be impossible for this piece of life to survive alone on a hostile environment.But even if it could survive it would be impossible for this piece of Life to start reproducing asexually by luck.And even more nightmarish is how could sexual reproduction start.How the male, female copy emerged?In general this process is impossible to have started without the aid of an intelligent force.It would be cool if aliens made a single visit on this planet,started the process of evolution and left the place but i dont think this happened

 

Irrelevant. A lack of life would simply make evolution be trivially true (it would explain all life, if only because there is no life). This always happens for any conditional when the premise is false. Anyhow, there is life so no need to worry about that. (If you want to know about where life came from, the theory you are looking for is abiogenesis, which is entirely separate from evolution).

 

2)Living fossils.Species dont evolve for hundreds of millions of years and, in the case of microorganisms, for billions of years.Current scientific theories claim that, for example, more complex eyes were "selected for" and species that evolved these eyes managed to survive by killing their opponents.Videos cite mollusk eyes as an example of evolution of simpler to more complex eyes.

Fact:Mollusks never evolved better vision(and they have survived unchanged despite their bad vision,for hundreds of millions of years).Why natural selection didnt elimanated mollusks for their bad vision?And if they managed to survive despite their bad vision why should we hypothesize that our vision was a result of natural selection?There is zero evidence that better eyes were "selected for".

 

This just shows your ignorance of the theory you're critiquing. What part of evolutionary theory are you saying requires all species to undergo large phenotypical mutations? That's right, none.

 

3)Irreducible complexity.Science has rejected this claiming that it is a creationist invention.However what evolved first?The blood or the heart?The mouth or the digestive system?Actually there are countless examples like these that show that organisms are impossible to have evolved

 

In addition to what ydoaps said, irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance (I don't know how therefore it's impossible), which only has meaning when the chance of ignorance is slim (ie, it's only a valid argument when you are fairly certain you know all possible ways for the complex organ to be formed and can rule them all out)

 

4)Convergent evolution.Many unrelated species show similar traits.Bats, birds, incests all of them fly yet they are unrelated.Theories claim that when an organism developed vision he managed to kill its opponents and his trait survived. The same happened with hearing, smell etc etc.The current theories claim that all our traits came from a single organism who randomly mutated these traits.But convergent evolution debunks this and shows that traits occured on species independently.Mollusks and turtles both have "private houses" yet they are completely unrelated.How could this sophisticated trait emerge on two different species with neo darwinian evolution?

 

Why should convergent evolution be unexpected? Why are you essentially claiming that must there be infinitely many good solutions to a problem? If a trait can evolve once, how does that make it impossible for it to evolve a second time? What you are claiming is nonsensical. Convergent evolution is predicted by the theory of evolution in at least a few circumstances, such as fish and dolphins having similar shape via convergent evolution and not by homology like it would usually happen.

 

I'd say convergent evolution proves evolution is true and disproves intelligent design. As above, convergent evolution is predicted by evolution. But if an intelligent designer solved a problem once, why would he go and re-solve the same problem in a similar way when he already has a solution? Especially when that creator was shown to be pathetically unimaginative given the multiple homologies also observed?

 

5)Current scientific theories claim that evolution is blind.That microorganisms might remain microorganisms but they could also evolve to dinosaurs.But there are things that cannot evolve with blind evolution.Example:Snake poison.How could a blind process create such a sophisticated poison?How could a blind process built in small steps a private house for turtles?You either have this shell that protects you or you dont.

 

You are saying it is impossible to gradually create something that cannot be gradually created. That may be true, but you have not yet offered an example of anything which cannot be gradually created, and it is just another rephrasing of your irreducible complexity argument from ignorance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Irrelevant. A lack of life would simply make evolution be trivially true (it would explain all life, if only because there is no life). This always happens for any conditional when the premise is false. Anyhow, there is life so no need to worry about that. (If you want to know about where life came from, the theory you are looking for is abiogenesis, which is entirely separate from evolution).

 

Sorry the start is everything but irrelevant.No Abiogenesis has ever been observed therefore the emergance of Life without a creator is pure religion and i dont want religion to be promoted as science.You seperate Abiogenesis and evolution to hide the fact that Abiogenesis is impossible therefore evolution is also impossible

 

 

This just shows your ignorance of the theory you're critiquing. What part of evolutionary theory are you saying requires all species to undergo large phenotypical mutations? That's right, none.).

 

Sorry science claims that our great ancestors were apes, lemurs etc etc.Fossils show that Lemurs, for example, remained lemurs for 60 million years.

Why shouldnt i hypothesize that a lemur will remain a lemur and they will never evolve to a new specie?

 

 

In addition to what ydoaps said, irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance (I don't know how therefore it's impossible), which only has meaning when the chance of ignorance is slim (ie, it's only a valid argument when you are fairly certain you know all possible ways for the complex organ to be formed and can rule them all out)

 

So can you explain to me how could an eye evolve?What evolved first?The eyeball, the vusal cortex or the optic nerve?

 

 

Why should convergent evolution be unexpected? Why are you essentially claiming that must there be infinitely many good solutions to a problem? If a trait can evolve once, how does that make it impossible for it to evolve a second time? What you are claiming is nonsensical. Convergent evolution is predicted by the theory of evolution in at least a few circumstances, such as fish and dolphins having similar shape via convergent evolution and not by homology like it would usually happen.

 

I'd say convergent evolution proves evolution is true and disproves intelligent design. As above, convergent evolution is predicted by evolution. But if an intelligent designer solved a problem once, why would he go and re-solve the same problem in a similar way when he already has a solution? Especially when that creator was shown to be pathetically unimaginative given the multiple homologies also observed?.).

 

Since convergent evolution is accepted by science why shouldnt we hypothesize that other traits like the eyes or the ears are a result of convergent evolution?Also regarding what a creator would like to do its just a speculation

 

 

You are saying it is impossible to gradually create something that cannot be gradually created. That may be true, but you have not yet offered an example of anything which cannot be gradually created, and it is just another rephrasing of your irreducible complexity argument from ignorance.

 

I dont know if it is an argument from ignorance.I do know though that its tough to explain how something sophisticated like snake poison could evolve.You must have imagination to explain this or other unique traits organisms have

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to be deliberately missing the point about abiogenesis.

 

"You seperate Abiogenesis and evolution to hide the fact that Abiogenesis is impossible therefore evolution is also impossible"

 

You can't have evolution without life so, in order to even discuss evolution, you have to accept that life exists.

Since we are here that's not really an issue; we know life exists. If we assume that at some time in the past, life did not exist, then our existence proves that some sort of abiogenesis took place.

By the time evolution can take place you missed the abiogenesis.

 

How the first life arose is nothing to do with evolution. It's plausible (though unevinced) that God created the primordial soup with a few primitive bugs then left them to get on with it and we are a product of that. It could be something like the "panspermia" hypothesis. It could be something else.

 

It wouldn't rule out evolution.

 

As I see it, the biggest bit of evidence in favour of evolution is that, for evolution not to occur, something would have to prevent it.

Unless you are saying that God (or whatever) goes round each night and resets the biodiversity clock, how can evolution fail to happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry the start is everything but irrelevant.No Abiogenesis has ever been observed therefore the emergance of Life without a creator is pure religion and i dont want religion to be promoted as science.You seperate Abiogenesis and evolution to hide the fact that Abiogenesis is impossible therefore evolution is also impossible

 

Conjunction fallacy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So can you explain to me how could an eye evolve?What evolved first?The eyeball, the vusal cortex or the optic nerve?

 

F1.medium.gif

It should be noted that all of these intermediate eyes are found in nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry the start is everything but irrelevant.No Abiogenesis has ever been observed therefore the emergance of Life without a creator is pure religion and i dont want religion to be promoted as science.You seperate Abiogenesis and evolution to hide the fact that Abiogenesis is impossible therefore evolution is also impossible

 

No, they're separated because they're different things. Evolution is something that happens to life that already exists. We don't know how life began in the first place, although we do have some ideas. We do know that evolution occurs.

 

Sorry science claims that our great ancestors were apes, lemurs etc etc.Fossils show that Lemurs, for example, remained lemurs for 60 million years.

Why shouldnt i hypothesize that a lemur will remain a lemur and they will never evolve to a new specie?

 

Lemurs might remain similar for 60 million years, but they don't stay exactly the same. And most things don't remain that static. And before lemurs were lemurs, they weren't. So your question is a bit like saying, "It's been raining here for 3 days, why shouldn't I hypothesize that it will never stop raining?" Well, because it eventually always does, and because everything we know about the weather predicts that it will.

 

So, sure, if lemurs' environment doesn't change much, most likely they will continue to evolve slowly. If their environment changes a lot, most likely they will evolve quickly.

 

So can you explain to me how could an eye evolve?What evolved first?The eyeball, the vusal cortex or the optic nerve?

 

See, now this is an example of an argument from ignorance. It's not necessary to be able to explain how every single aspect of everything happened in order for the general concepts to be considered well-supported. But, if you really are interested:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

 

Since convergent evolution is accepted by science why shouldnt we hypothesize that other traits like the eyes or the ears are a result of convergent evolution?Also regarding what a creator would like to do its just a speculation

 

I don't understand the question. Convergent evolution means that different organisms evolve similar solutions to similar problems.

 

I dont know if it is an argument from ignorance.I do know though that its tough to explain how something sophisticated like snake poison could evolve.You must have imagination to explain this or other unique traits organisms have

 

Yes, it is tough to explain. The concepts of evolution are fairly simple, but the actual process is very complicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry the start is everything but irrelevant.No Abiogenesis has ever been observed therefore the emergance of Life without a creator is pure religion and i dont want religion to be promoted as science.You seperate Abiogenesis and evolution to hide the fact that Abiogenesis is impossible therefore evolution is also impossible

 

Consider the statement, "If the moon is made of green cheese, then I can fly." Many schools of logic consider that statement to be true, since the only way for it to be false would require that the moon in in fact be made of green cheese and yet me being unable to fly. For these purposes, the statement If A then B is equivalent to (Not A) or B.

 

Other schools of logic consider implication to be a stronger statement than as above. These people translate "If A then B" as In all possible worlds, either B is true or A is false.

 

However, nowhere will you find that (Not A) ever logically proves false the statement "If A then B".

 

Perhaps what you mean to say is, "Without a materialistic explanation for abiogenesis, there is no materialistic explanation for the origin of life". That would be true, but evolution still has nothing to do with it.

 

Sorry science claims that our great ancestors were apes, lemurs etc etc.

 

Wrong. Do you also think that science claims that your brothers and sisters and cousins are your ancestors? You confuse "having a common ancestor" with "being the common ancestor". Just because your siblings share a common ancestor with you (you parent), does not make your siblings your ancestor.

 

Fossils show that Lemurs, for example, remained lemurs for 60 million years.

Why shouldnt i hypothesize that a lemur will remain a lemur and they will never evolve to a new specie?

 

Why? On what basis? And what do you mean by "remain a lemur"? Are we not still eukaryotes like the first eukaryotes, animals like the first animal, mammals like the first mammal, primates like the first primate? We don't look the same but we still fit the description. And we've acquired additional descriptions along the way.

 

So can you explain to me how could an eye evolve?What evolved first?The eyeball, the vusal cortex or the optic nerve?

 

If you can't explain every possible method via which the eye could have evolved, then you can't credibly claim that the eye couldn't have evolved. You are so ignorant in this subject that no reasonable person could take your ignorance about it as proof that it could not have happened. In fact, you don't even know how the eye develops from the DNA sequences coding for it, and yet you propose that your ignorance about how the DNA sequences could have changed from what it was before to what it is now proves it couldn't have happened.

 

Since convergent evolution is accepted by science why shouldnt we hypothesize that other traits like the eyes or the ears are a result of convergent evolution?

 

Some are and some aren't. If they're similar at the detailed level they're homologies, if they're similar at the superficial level and not at the detailed level they're called convergent evolution. Most of the time, what is observed is homologies like how the arms of bats, birds, whales, horses are all similar. Occasionally, convergent evolution happens like how the eyes of the squid and human are different.

 

Also regarding what a creator would like to do its just a speculation

 

Then you cannot have a creator as part of a scientific theory, and must by necessity believe in a materialistic cause for everything. No specific (falsifiable) predictions = not science. So are you ready to accept that science cannot have a creator, or that science can speculate as to what the creator would do, or do you prefer to not do science at all? Not only must you be able to speculate what the creator might do, but claim to know for a fact what the creator might do, what properties it must have, etc. Otherwise you can't make falsifiable predictions.

 

A falsifiable prediction is a prediction based off your theory such that if the prediction fails than your theory cannot be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry science is wrong.A type of a creator exists that started by making microorganisms and continued by building more complex structures.This explains why microorganisms remained microorganisms, Mollusks remained mollusks etc etc.This creator made plants to have his structures something to eat.Deinothirium, Gomphotherium and elephants belong to the same group of animals(elephants) but the first had 2 tusks on the lower Jaw, the second four tasks and the third two tusks on the upper Jaw.They lived in the same era.Science classifies them as relatives but in fact they are not related.They are Ford model S ---> Ford model T ----> Ford model A.The same can be said about humans.The last model before them was neadertal and the new improvement are modern humans

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry science is wrong.A type of a creator exists that started by making microorganisms and continued by building more complex structures.

 

For someone who claims to have "lost faith to evolution," you seem to have found something else very specific to be faithful to very quickly, for no apparent reason.

 

Instead of doing that, why don't you learn more about evolution? All of your objections to it seem to be based on misunderstandings of what evolution is and how it occurs.

 

This explains why microorganisms remained microorganisms, Mollusks remained mollusks etc etc.

 

No, it doesn't. Evolution, on the other hand, does. If you don't understand why, then you really have no business declaring that "science is wrong." (And if you have no interest in learning, then please leave this forum.)

 

Microorgansims of all sorts are extremely successful at reproducing, and that's the only thing that evolution favors. It does not make things "better" according to some human definition or preference. So yes, of course there are still microorganisms. Why shouldn't there be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but during Darwin's era scientists thought that we evolved from Neadertals.Now we know that this is not true.During his era Neadertal was the most clever specie ever walked on this planet.Yet he got extinct by a new specie even more intelligent!Actually since Homo erectus the one intelligent specie is giving its place to another even more intelligent.As i wrote its Ford S---> to Ford T.This creator decided to create an intelligent specie and all these humanoids are his experiments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but during Darwin's era scientists thought that we evolved from Neadertals.Now we know that this is not true.During his era Neadertal was the most clever specie ever walked on this planet.Yet he got extinct by a new specie even more intelligent!Actually since Homo erectus the one intelligent specie is giving its place to another even more intelligent.As i wrote its Ford S---> to Ford T.This creator decided to create an intelligent specie and all these humanoids are his experiments.

 

So science disproving misconceptions and gaining more knowledge proves science is useless? Makes perfect sense. Aside from that how do you know that Neanderthal wasn't more intelligent, whatever that may mean, and just happened to succumb to a disease, or that we were more warlike and killed them off?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry science is wrong.A type of a creator exists that started by making microorganisms and continued by building more complex structures.This explains why microorganisms remained microorganisms, Mollusks remained mollusks etc etc.This creator made plants to have his structures something to eat.Deinothirium, Gomphotherium and elephants belong to the same group of animals(elephants) but the first had 2 tusks on the lower Jaw, the second four tasks and the third two tusks on the upper Jaw.They lived in the same era.Science classifies them as relatives but in fact they are not related.They are Ford model S ---> Ford model T ----> Ford model A.The same can be said about humans.The last model before them was neadertal and the new improvement are modern humans

 

The same is true with evolution. Eukaryotes remained eukaroytes, vertebrates remained vertebrates, mammals remained mammals, primates remained primates. Each later category is but a specific variety of what already was.

 

(oh, and unless you can make falsifiable predictions from your creator theory, it doesn't really explain anything and just gives that illusion)

 

Incidentally, it is interesting you bring up design. What designer builds everything from just about the same parts but with seemingly random variation of irrelevant details? Why not change the parts, or leave some out? Yet it makes sense when considering this as mutations of a common ancestor. Consider for example the viper genes in the cows; if creatures were designed would we not see large quantities of horizontal gene transfer replacing vertical gene transfer? Yet such examples are extremely rare and more consistent with a rare insertion by a trans-species retrovirus than intentional design by a creator.

 

Some species however do bear the mark of intelligent design. For example "golden rice", bears the genes for psy (phytoene synthase) from daffodil (Narcissus pseudonarcissus) and crtl from the soil bacterium Erwinia uredovora; and both these genes just so happen to be involved in the synthesis of beta-carotene (a precursor to vitamin A). I don't think this can be explained by coincidence considering that horizontal gene transfer is so rare in eukaryotes and both those are in the same metabolic pathway; it would almost seem like these plants were created specifically to provide us with vitamin A. However, such organisms bearing a clear mark of design are very rare, and evolution explains the others very nicely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but during Darwin's era scientists thought that we evolved from Neadertals.

 

You keep bringing up Darwin's work. While he was a pioneer in evolutionary theory, I notice you don't bother to quote the incredibly vast body of work that's helped refine the theory since his death almost 130 years ago. Your every question has been answered here, yet you still say "science is wrong". It's clear you aren't actually listening to any of what's been said, and you certainly aren't reading what's been recommended.

 

Don't worry though. Science will continue to be rigorous, even if you can't be bothered to. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two things to discuss John 13.

 

You repeatedly make reference to the constancy of many species over millions of years. Please take note of this simple fact: there has been no such constancy. To say that lemurs have always been lemurs is pretty much the same as saying soap powder has always been soap powder. Even allowing for the exagerations of marketing people, today's soap powder is dramatically different in detail from the soap powder of fifteen, or twenty years ago. It may still come in cartons and wash clothes, but its precise chemical make up is quite different. So to with lemurs and every other example you have given. Even when the outward form remains roughly the same the exact DNA sequence will have gone through many changes. In short, as with most of your points, you don't have one.

 

Secondly, you say you have lost your faith in evolution. Others have pointed out that acceptance of evolution should not be based on faith. (That would be dumb.) However, at the risk of being censured by the moderation staff, let me say what is doubtless in the minds of most readers of this thread. You never had any faith in evolution. You have come here with trite, tired old creationist arguments merely to troll. If I am wrong I shall apologise profusely. Demonstrate I am wrong by explaining how you came to acquire your knowledge of and belief in evolution. That will better allow us to see how you 'lost your faith'.

 

Alternatively be an honest Christian and admit you have posted here under false pretences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've lost my faith on evolution and here are some reasons why

I've lost faith in genealogy.

 

Sorry science claims that our great ancestors were apes, lemurs etc etc.Fossils show that Lemurs, for example, remained lemurs for 60 million years.

Why shouldnt i hypothesize that a lemur will remain a lemur and they will never evolve to a new specie?

My family tree says that I'm descended from a Dutch guy who lived 350 years ago. But, I live in the U.S.--I'm not Dutch. If Dutch people still exist and I'm supposed to come from Dutch people then how come I'm not Dutch?

 

For example, my ancestor supposedly lived in "New Amsterdam", but I've looked on a map and there is no such place. Genealogists tried to explain how my ancestors were Dutch, but I'm not Dutch so they invented a 'new' place that is kind of Dutch, but not really--so they just called it "New Amsterdam".

 

How could a blind process built in small steps a private house for turtles?You either have this shell that protects you or you dont.

Plus, my Dutch/Not-Dutch ancestor was supposedly named "Jan" one day then suddenly had the name "John" the next day. A person is either a "Jan" or a "John", and they don't change from one to the other overnight.

 

Many unrelated species show similar traits.Bats, birds, incests all of them fly yet they are unrelated.

My Dutch ancestors are supposedly on my father's side of the family, but an ancestor at the same time on my mother's side of the family was also named "John" and they lived in England. Is this supposed to be coincidence? Why did "Jan" suddenly get the name "John" if he was not related to my English side of the family and didn't know them at all? Genealogists can't explain that.

 

Sorry the start is everything but irrelevant.No Abiogenesis has ever been observed therefore the emergance of Life without a creator is pure religion and i dont want religion to be promoted as science.You seperate Abiogenesis and evolution to hide the fact that Abiogenesis is impossible therefore evolution is also impossible

Also, no one knows where "Jan" came from. Genealogists can't explain who his mother and father were. Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation so there is no way that I could be descended from this person. I'm supposed to believe that he just popped up out of the ground and here I am a dozen generations later?

 

Sorry science is wrong.A type of a creator exists that started by making microorganisms and continued by building more complex structures.This explains why microorganisms remained microorganisms, Mollusks remained mollusks etc etc.

Genealogists are wrong. Aliens designed my DNA and impregnated my mother. This explains why British people are still British and Dutch people are still Dutch, but I am neither. It's because I'm not descended from them. I have no ancestors on this planet.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.