Evolution's Principals?

Question

I know most theists do not accept evolution for varying reasons; the primary reason being that it would invalidate our special place in the universe as being created by god in its image. But is there an actual disagreement with any of evolution's principals?

Let's find out!

The following principals must be met for evolution to exist and to occur.

1.) The structure of DNA expresses the organism's phenotypic characteristics. (A wolf is a wolf because of its DNA)

2.) DNA can replicate and mutate. (Insertion, deletion, duplication & transposition)

3.) Some combinations of genetic material found in DNA can be beneficial or deleterious. (Extra chromosome - Mental retardation; Heterogeneous allels for sickle cell anemia - Immunity to malaria.)

4.) An organisms success influences is ability to reproduce and therefore pass on its DNA.

For those theists who do not accept evolution, which of the above do you disagree with any why?

To whynotaskdon;

You are wrong. DNA can mutate through deletions, insertions, duplication and transposition.

Only 1 of the 4 forms of mutation actually results in loss of information. Duplication and insertion increase the level of information.

To Panacea:

I have no care how DNA may evolve into something other the DNA. As all biological forms of life on this planet contain DNA, your question or premise is irrelevant.

To Zacko;

Sorry to burst your bubble, but each of those principals are not hypothesis, they are fact. THey have been independently verified in labaratories across the world.

To Jo;

"Well i didn't really read that question"...

Then what could you possible be responding to? Not much reason to answer questions if you aren't going to read them, is there?

To tertiahibernica;

If an organism is the product of DNA, and DNA can freely mutate how is it that you do not comprehend that microevolution will lead to macroevolution over greater periods of time? (Honestly, micro-macro is a differentiation invented by theist who still can't let go of the fact that both are evolution, period!)

Answer 1

I'm a "theist" Christian, I believe in Creation, I do not believe in evolution, and I agree with every one of your points--Especially since they are all repeatable in a laboratory setting and are irrefutable.

Yet I still believe that evolution is a myth because none of those points support the theory that all life had one common ancestor. Merely, they support variations within kinds of creatures. In other words, these four very true statements don't even come close to proving evolution of life from a common ancestor.

The primary reason that do not accept evolution is not based on my faith, but instead based on many many facts. If God wanted to use evolution to create the world, He could have done that and it wouldn't bug me in the slightest.

Answer 2

Okay, here's the deal. It's something that took me a long time to realize, and I didn't really want to hear it when I did.

Your four points are the principles of MICROevolution. Microevolution is what Darwin observed during his voyages on the Beagle, and it is proven, scientific fact. Most theists don't disagree with any of those; I certainly don't.

The problem with evolution is that Darwin and successive scientists made the jump from microevolution to MACROevolution. If you aren't sure about the semantics, macroevolution is the big picture evolution - when one species evolves into another. What I'm saying is, Darwin made an assumption. I have been studying science for a number of years, and the first things they tell you in every branch of science is NOT to assume. One should never jump to conclusions, and your experiments should be as objective as possible.

People who were not feeling good about God were unfortunately the ones trying to study evolution. They weren't trying to study everything about it even, they were just trying to prove it. 99% or more of macroevolution is speculative and highly controversial, but we figure it must be right because our only other theories at this point are spontaneous generation or creation by God. The greater part of the public doesn't normally hear about what the scientists are finding to disprove their theories - you wouldn't want to publish something that would make your theory look wrong.

That's why I disagree with macroevolution. What evidence have we really seen of one species turning into a different one? Maybe not any less than we have for creation, but there it is.

Answer 3

I am very familiar with this line of questioning and it is a good opportunity to show that creation has no conflict or disagreement with the principles of natural selection because they are factual, verifiable, observable, duplicable, etc. These concepts do not conflict with known observations or laws OR the Bible. The problem arises when one insists that these basic postulates result in a chain of events that progress one species into another. That alone is something that OBSERVABLE biology cannot sustain as a viable means for nature to operate. You reference the mutation of DNA that results in positive change to a creature, yet you could not show a sequence in which the DNA replicates into something that is no longer DNA, yet does something like what the DNA did, but much different and ultimately better...IN other words, its always DNA. Let us not also forget that another unspoken postulate of evolution is the fact that a creator God has never had a hand in the creation, hence we MUST us evolutionary postulates alone to explain the presence of life on earth. Here we travel to a murky world were lifeless material stuff becomes living biological stuff in direct contradiction to anything we can observe, test, replicate, or rely upon as law.

Answer 4

I don't believe in evolution because there is no scientific evidence for it despite incredible investigation into the matter. Where are the intermediate forms between phenotypes? There are none. A species can change over time, even have many different forms. For example, there are many breeds of dogs and many different races of human. But there are no intermediate forms. No dogs that look like a cross between a cat and a dog. No apemen. This holds true for all investigation into the matter. Not one fossil. Not even a single mutation of a single type of bacteria forced to undergo millions of generations of replication.

Nothing, nada, zip.....zero, evidence of evolution. It's time to face the facts. Scientific observation has proven conclusively that evolution is simply false.

Further, I would like to point out that the OTHER type of evolution you talk about. A point mutation being passed on to descendents. Is mostly based on fraud. It DOES happen. However, it is rare. And it never lasts more than a few generations. Hardly a viable mechanism for the other type of evolution.

http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=589

Answer 5

That seems to sum it up quite well, if I haven't missed anything.

However, I think most theists disagree not with microevolution, but with macroevolution.

Yet, they aren't aware that one implies the other. An accumulation of mutations, over millions of years, will inevitably cause the divergence of a species.

Microevolution implies Macroevolution.

The guy above me stated something about DNA always being the same or lesser value.

That is a little funny, how can one determine the value of DNA?
I think he meant that the DNA will never be as good as the previous. That, however, is clearly not true if one looks at the fossil record.

Answer 6

There are traits of bacterium the flagellum that propels them. When these little "engines" are broken down to there simplest parts the evolution of such a mechanism cannot be explained. Any one of the parts would serve no purpose by there self. So a mutation on a bacterium that produced one of these parts would not increase its chance of survival. The odds of a mutation that would produce all the complex parts that work together to propels the bacterium are zero. Its things like these that leave gaping wholes in Darwin's theory. I believe in intelligent design but at the same time I am an Agnostic.

Answer 7

Well i didn't really read that question, but i would like to say that evolution is a dumb theory. First of all people say we evolved from monkeys. If we did, how come there aren't monkeys evolving into humans now? I know, I know- it takes thousands of years for evolution to happen. But how come there aren't any thousand year old monkeys evolving into humans? Another thing- evolutionists usually believe in the big bang. That is the dumbest thing i ever heard. That is like saying, "i have this big pile of wood sitting in my back yard. if i blow it up it will turn into a house. The big bang could have never happened. If you want more info on evolution go to
http://www.answersingenesiscom/ I believe that "In the begining God created the Heavens and the Earth" Genesis 1:1

Answer 8

Nice hypothesis, now proving them would be another matter.

added comment:
o.k so maybe they have been proven.
I'm not a scientist but all of these are based on the assumption that DNA in of it's self is what maps and defines a living thing.

I will study the scientific beliefs for evolution further.

Answer 9

Thank you for the lessons!

THE GOD invented DNA. DNA always breaks down - never gains information. DNA passed on is the same or of lesser value.

The above, your thinking, is pretty good - considering it comes from an advanced breed of monkey!

Answer 10

This is a hard battleground for me because I believed in science and fact and evolution for most of my life. But I have been researching Christianity and its beliefs and have been attending Church and trying to develop my faith. I guess I have a long way to go if I have any doubt at all, huh?