the best thing going against evolution...?

Question

how can my soul come from an amoebe? that isnt possible, u cant go from barely anythin to something far better (as in a soul)

and even if the big bang theory or somethin like that was true... then what started that? what started evreything? humans havent thought of any theory that hasnt had to have a cause... a greater being

Answer 1

Seriously kid, you need to start reading some real material by impartial authors rather than simply accepting religious dogma.


>>>how can my soul come from an amoebe?

As soon as you present any evidence that the soul even exists science will give that due consideration. Since we have n more evidence for the existence of the soul than for the existence of leprechauns it simply isn’t an issue.

As far as anyone can tell there is no such thing as a soul.

>>>>u cant go from barely anythin to something far better

Well of course you can you silly girl. Have you never grown salt crystals from warm slaty water? Are you suggesting that a crystal isn’t far better than a random scattering of suspended ions?

In the real world order comes from chaotic systems all the time.

>>>>and even if the big bang theory or somethin like that was
>>> true...

What exactly does the BB have to do with evolution? You appear be ingnorant, as are most fundamentalists, that these are two totally unconnected fields of science.

>>>> what started evreything?

Random fluctuations within the quantum foam. That is what started everything.
But once again I ask, what exactly does the BB have to do with evolution?

>>>humans havent thought of any theory that hasnt had to have a cause... a greater being

And what caused the “greater being” my child?

A “greater being” has to have a cause as well, so what caused that cause that caused the greater being? It’s turtles all the way down. At some point you need to admit that either something came form nothing, or there was no previous point and time itself came into existence.

Vague handwaving at some “greater being” doesn’t resolve the basic problem, all it does is violate Ockham’s razor and makes your position logically untenable.

Answer 2

The question is valid, if there is proof for the existence of a soul, and we agree beforehand how the term soul is defined.

Evolution is not about the origins of the universe. As generally described, Evolution is a combination of Darwin's Natural Selection and Mendel's Genetic Inheritance to explain the diversity of life on this planet (and some say that life found anywhere in the universe will follow the same principles). It is the only credible explanation so far, with plenty of evidence to support it's principles.

The Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with Evolution, and neither does Evolutionary thinking profess to explain how the universe began.

Finally, just because humankind doesn't yet understand how the universe was born, other (already proven as highly probable) scientific theories do not get invalidated . Such fallacious deduction is the same kind of thinking that gave rise to belief in the God of Lightning and Thunder, the God of the Sea, and other such divine beings - we didn't have an explanation at the time for natural phenomena.

My 2c, evolved from Sumerian currency. :).

Answer 3

The soul isn't scientific, it's religious.
The worm hole theory explains that the mass from the Big Bang came through a worm hole in space time. Which means that the mass of the universe will ultimately "recycle", and will then cause the Big Bang.

Answer 4

Hmmm, the fact that high order systems don't come from low order systems, there are several "irreducible machines" in the body, the fossil record is incomplete, Darwin abandoned his own theory, the refusal for science to look at all the possibilities. Actually, the list goes on and on.

Peace and axle grease,
Jon

Answer 5

The best thing going against evolution... believe it or not is the most basic of sciences: Mathematics.

This is part of something I posted elsewhere a long time ago... ;-)

The chances of a monkey randomly typing "to be or not to be, that is the question." if:

there are 17 billion galaxies with
17 billion habitable planet per galaxy with
17 billion immortal monkeys per planet
typing 1 sentence per second for 17 billion years (age of universe being about 14 billion by some estimates)

would be: 1 in 18,718,157,355,362

Hmmm... you're 1,338,558 times more likely to win the lottery this week.

How much more so for a living organism whose DNA would require several volumes of books just to describe.

When cells were thought to be simple bags of water and protoplasm, it was easy to envision a scenario where molecules randomly aggregated to form cellular structure.

But now, we know that a cell is a tremendously complex organism with an intracellular structure that surpasses any metropolis with complex interdependent series of proteins that would put any bureaucrat to shame.

Certainly it is possible that the structures were randomly formed (though now there is also a concept of irreducible complexity that even questions that thought), but the probability that it could happen is so remote especially in the estimated age of our planet of 4 billion years, that it may as well be an impossiblity.

The Theory of Evolution contends that all the animal and plant species arose by natural selection of random mutations of the genome. If one traces back all species you will end up with the progenitor cell (or cells) from which all species were derived.

The progenitor cell would also have to have been a result of the natural selection of the numerous spontaneous and random assemblege of lipid microspheres, polypeptides, proteins that resulted in a protocell that developed the ability not only to replicate itself but transfer the information required to replicate itself to its daughter cells.

If you believe that all species are the result of natural selection of random mutation, logically you must play it all the way to the beginning where life started with one or more spontaneously randomly generated cells.

This is where the improbability arises:

In order to generate a protocell capable of reproduction, the absolute minimum you need is:
a shell (the phospholipid membrane),
a primitive blueprint (the mRNA),
the reproductive machinery (the ribosomes),
the building blocks (the amino acids),
the energy to run the machinery (NADH, ATP, cAMP, whatever floats your proteins :-) )
the machinery to bring the building blocks in and out the cell (the cell membrane protein gates),
and the machinery to either make the energy or bring the energy in from outside (another series of complex interrelated membrane proteins).

All this randomly mixed into a soup to make a horribly inefficient "cell" (more like a water balloon) that would take weeks to months or even longer to collect enough material to get big enough for the phosoplipid membrane to distort enough to bud off a daughter cell which may not be able to replicate since it may not have randomly received enough mRNA from the parent cell to survive since microtubules and mitosis has not yet been randomly assembled.

Then at some point you will need to randomly assemble:
a more permanent blueprint (DNA),
a complex network of proteins to move all the building blocks from one place and figure out where they need to go (the microtubular network),
the machinery to make mitosis work so you won't have all these sterile nonfunctioning daughter cells (the centromeres),
a better waste management system so you don't clutter your internal works or overwhelm the homeostasis and denature all those precious proteins that you may or may not be able to reproduce with any accuracy (the golgi system),
and maybe some way to detect where to find building blocks and dangerous substances and the ability to either move toward or away from them and a way to figure all that out (chemoreceptors, photoreceptors, more microtubules for pseudopods, maybe even flagella).

And after you've done this you need to make sure you have a copy of the blueprints of the useful proteins you've churned out and not thousands of feet of DNA that have produced worthless random polypeptides.

And all this done randomly within the short time from the cooling of the earth's crust and the emergence of multicellular animals & plants.

Now don't forget even the simplest proteins have on the range of a 100 or so amino acids, and there are about 20 to 30 different amino acids (or so) to choose from. In order to code that 100 amino acid protein, you need 300 base pairs of DNA. Any numbers of errors may result in a totally nonfunctional protein.

If you think about all that is required, "to be or not to be" typed out by a countless number of immortal monkeys starting at the beginning of the universe seems much more probable.

And for the molecular and cellular biologists out there, yes, I know I simplified this a lot, but I couldn't get myself to type more!

Answer 6

Stop reading the Bible with out asking any questions. Wake up and see the facts. You have a tail bone at the end of your backbone like all other humans, a vestige of our ape ancestors.

There is no God. There is no heaven or hell. There is only Science.

Answer 7

there is nothing going against evelotuion.what started the big bang was another universe collapsing.and i belive that all thing have souls,so an ameoba has a soul,a plant has a soul,and we have souls.

Answer 8

what is a soul? whos to say it does or doesnt exist? you cant define a soul as a physical thing, only an idea.

same thing with God. you really cant prove he does or doesnt exist. the idea is there, but there is no way to tell for sure.

Answer 9

How can a soul be made, where does it come form, has anyone seen one?