Evolution isn't possible?

Question

all of you have been brainwashed into evolution. Think about it...Do you think that an animal with half-evolved brains, organs,etc. can survive? Also the universe is in a chaotic state (Law of entropy), so how can there be increasing complexity through evolution?

Answer 1

Back in 1776, monarchists argued against democracy as a form of government. They said it was absurd to believe that "All men are created equal" because anyone could see men came in different heights, weights and colors. Women did too, they said. Case closed.

My point is not about democracy. It is about debate. Before you argue about something, you should understand it. If you don't understand it, you'll look foolish. Gilda Radner, on the original "Saturday Night Live" TV Show, used to do a sketch every couple of weeks in which she made completely ridiculous arguments. One night she argued vehemently against the "Deaf Penalty", instead of the "Death Penalty". She looked absurd, which was the point, and we all laughed until the beer came out our noses, which was what she wanted. You don't want people to laugh at you.

In a serious debate, you should understand the other side. Note that I didn't say "Believe". Understanding is not the same as believing. If you were to study 20th century European Political history, you would have to understand several forms of government: communism (the UUSR), fascism (Germany, Italy), socialism (Lots of countries), socialist democracy, capitalistic democracy and constitutional monarchy. You would not believe in all of them; you could not believe in all of them at once. If you tried, your head would explode. You would, however, have to understand their basic concepts.

If you were to study comparative religion, you would have to understand what Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Taoists and Confucians believe. You would not have to convert to a new religion every week, but you would have to understand the other ones. You would not get very far in your studies if you dismissed all the other ones as "wrong". They believe their path is the right one just as strongly as you believe your path is the right one.

99% of the biologists alive today believe that species evolve, and that the theory of evolution is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life. Christian biologists, Jewish biologists, Muslim biologists, Hindu biologists, Buddhist biologists; Australian, Bolivian and Chinese biologists; 99% of them believe it is the best explanation. Yes, it is only a theory. Planetary motion - the theory that the earth went around the sun, not vice versa - was only a theory for a long time. Some people still don't believe it. Their eyes tell them differently.

Species don't evolve at the same rate and they don't all have to evolve. Alligators, to take one example, haven't changed much for 40 million years. The ones that were 50 feet long have become extinct, but the normal 14-footers are still there in the swamps, hoping men don't shoot them to use their hides for shoes. They didn't have to worry about that 3 million years ago. We humans are at the top of the heap today, either because we evolved or God liked us better than He did the alligators. Either way, we can make tools better than any other species.

Your question has been answered, hundreds of times, by people more versed in biology than I. It gets answered ever week here at YA.

If you are truly curious, ask your minister to give you a short, reasoned explanation of evolution. If he says he can't because it is wrong, he is as ignorant as those monarchists I mentioned in my opening paragraph.

Answer 2

Don't ask me to think about it, think about it yourself. There are thousands and thousands of species that don't have brains at all. There is no such thing as a "half-evolved" brain - all organs that function as a brain are fully evolved for that species. Entropy is not chaos, the universe is a good deal more extensive than your statement implies you think it is, evolution is not about complexity.

The manner in which you use the terms you use more than suggests that you don't really get the concept of evolution at all. You don't get entropy, chaos theory, and complexity either. And these concepts do not relate to evolution. Evolution is a proven scientific fact, over and over. It conflicts with your beliefs. So you don't believe it and try to discredit it, largely by slinging half-baked jargon around. If you don't want to believe that evolution is a fact, nobody can stop you. You can be respected for your belief in whatever you believe in, but not for ding-bat pseudo-scientific blather.

Answer 3

Second Law of Therodynamics is dealing with energy, not order.

Second Law of Thermodynamics is for closed systems, not open ones..

Second Law of Thermodynamics deals in universal energy, not local.

^^^ Three disproofs of your "Entropy disproves Evolution" silliness.

As for your first claim, you assume that Evolution is goal based. That things were "evolving" up to the human brain when this isn't so. Basal Ganglia forms a central nervous system, which is noted in a process called Cephalisation (IIRC). This central nervous system developed over time to selection pressures, gainig and improving functions, or losing unusable functions whenever dictated by selection. The end result for humans was our brain, just as the end result for Chimpanzees was their brain, and so on.

Answer 4

I agree...just consider the complexities of sexual reporduction vis-a-vis an evolutionary model. If evolution takes place in incremental steps over a long period of time, when organisms made the jump from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction, what was the purpose of those proto-genitals doing for all those millenia and how did they suddenly spring into action in both males and females at the same time and same place...and how did the instinct to mate evolve at the same time.

Answer 5

Hahaha. Oh, wait... are you for real?

Brainwashed into believing evolution? Hell no! And I think you do not get Darwin's theory. That's not it. You are describing the beliefs of Lamarck. Nobody is a Lamarckist anymore. Research your material before asking unfounded questions.

And learn that there are new theories, with new elements to them that include Darwinism and world changes. I don't know the name in English, but it exists.

You don't know much about modern theories, now, do you?

I believe you have been brainwashed into believing in deities.

Answer 6

No, whoever said evolution involves animals with half evolved brains?

Even if evolution is 100% incorrect, it's still makes more sense than creation.

Answer 7

First, order can arise from disorder, but an excessive amount of energy must be expended. Second, evolutionary scientists would argue that small incremental steps could have practical uses.

Evolution is a blind unguided "process."

Natural selection
(sometimes mistakenly called "micro evolution"):

Some scientists claim that natural selection and mutations aid it in "creating" more complex lifeforms. However, this ignores the true nature of natural selection. By name, it is the selection of traits (pre-existing) that most suite a given climate. This actually results in the loss of traits unfavorable to a given climate as the individuals that express them are less suited to survive. This reduces the creature's ability to survive if the climate shifts in a way that would favor the trait that was lost (eg long thick fur if the climate cooled down)

Mutations are merely mutilations of the genetic code, a vast majority of which render the creature cursed with them to death, or a reduced existence. Sometimes, a mutation can be beneficial, such as beetles born without wings on an island(individuals which could fly were blown into the ocean). the genes coding for wings have been lost, and the only way to regain wings would be for the beetle to breed with one of its mainland counterparts.

the bottom line is that there is no way for evolution to create even incremental steps towards higher creatures. Punctuated equilibrium 'theory' states that new creatures formed very quickly(in evolutionary terms). This was thought up to attempt to account for the (complete) lack of transitional forms found in the fossil record.

Evolution is a world view that seeks any alternative explanation for the order in the universe for the sole purpose of denying that there is a creator. In many aspects evolution is much like a religion:

the original lifeform in the chemical soup:
how could it form?
how did it feed?
how could it reproduce?

it would have to:

1: know that it needed to consume something
1a. be able to find/process that something
1b. discharge the waste
2. be able to breathe
3. be programmed to reproduce.
3a be able to do this before it perished
4. form in a survivable climate

Conclusion: the evolutionary tree is missing its roots. Evolution is an undeclared religion, and provides a psuedo-scientific foundation for atheism, and secular humanism. Unlike other fields of science, no challenge of its factuality is tolerated. There are nicely named groups such as the National Academy of Science who's sole purpose is to foster the teaching of evolution in school classrooms, consuming time that could otherwise be spent on empirical science, instead of "once upon a time" scenarios.

Evolution is not, no matter how many would have you to believe, a fact. Evolution is, at best, a hypothesis for how the world and universe as we know it came into being.

Myth: "the fossils speak for themselves"
They are like evidence at a crime scene. It depends on your presuppositions. Evolution is assumed a priori, therefore, all evidence is interpreted in light of this "fact"

Myth: "radiometric dating proves that a given rock or fossil is X millions or billions of years old."
Radiometric dating is an indirect method of attempting to find an age. it actually measures the amount of a given isotope (the most familiar being carbon14) and then speculates the original amount of parent material. In many cases, dates provided by one method on a given sample will produce wildly ranging dates. A date is chosen which most closely reflects the scientist's estimated age for the rock (EG rock containing dinosaur fossils MUST be no younger than 93 Million years, rock containing human fossils CANNOT be that old).

myth: Scientists are unbiased and objective
While some may attempt to be, everyone has a set of beliefs which they base their actions on whether good or bad.

Misc.

Lamarckianism is a discarded branch hypothesis of evolution. the policies of Stalin were founded on survival of the fittest and the evolution of "communists man." Atheism was a foundational belief in communism, and the most ardent supporters of evolution are rabidly atheistic. Stephen J Gould, a noted evolutionist said that "Darwinism was ‘universal acid’, eating through every traditional idea." The purpose of evolution is to give a "scientific" foundation to atheism, thereby destroying the foundation for the standards given by God. If the creation account of Genesis can be successfully labeled a myth, then the whole Bible can be discarded.

Answer 8

Pathetic. These Creationists keep trotting out these discredited arguments.

For example, the Earth is not a closed system, so the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply. Period.

Answer 9

Wow.... don't tell your theory to Darwin or his followers.

Besides, if there's a problem with an animal's physical composition, that animal's genes are typically not carried on to the next generation (Natural Selection). If an animal is so poorly developed that it cannot procreate, it will cease to exist.

Answer 10

People who believe in evolution are stupid. I hope people see sense some time and realise the truth about Creation.