What do you think of these reasons against evolution?

Question

The book of Genesis specifically explains that God created all the animals in the sea and air and land in different days. That proves against evolution biblically. Now scientifically...

1) Where has macroevolution ever been observed? If an animal's leg evolved into a wing, wouldn't it become a bad leg before it became a good wing? What about the arm, and the face, and the digestive track?

2) If macroevolution happened, where are the billions of transitional fossils? There's not just a "missing link" There's billions!

3) How could the first living cell begin? It's still gotta be happening if there's still stages before us.

4) Which came first: DNA, or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA?

5) The most updated science is discovering again and again that the univers is young.

Don't get macroevolution (From monkey to human) confused with the proven theory, microevolution (From "Dog" to golden retriever, German Shepard, and the terrier, etc.)

Answer 1

just an fyi, in genetics one cannot OBTAIN new information, it must be handed down. therefore you can only lose information(de-evolution?). meaning reptiles that dont have genetics for wings cannot randomly grow wings someway down the line.

my favorite argument is, they dated the earth to be what some odd billion years old? 65? what happened 20 billion years before? if they found this by carbon dating, then how did the carbon have a start? how did it start? how come it just randomly started aging 65 billion years ago if its been around forever? does this rock GAIN more "life" ?

Answer 2

1) It takes too long to observe directly. The bone structures are virtually the same in close relative fossils so it is observable that the transition was made from leg to wing, etc.
2) You are assuming that fossils are easy to make and find. Neither is true. Most animals are not fossilized and finding them is even harder. Heck, they keep finding new living species so there is no chance that you would find them for all creatures that may have lived a very short time millions of years ago.
3) We don't really know. Lack of knowledge is just that. It doesn't mean anything other than we don't know. We can duplicate some of the chemistry that leads up to it. And there are viruses that lay in the middle ground between alive and not. So we are not completely without any idea. Piecing together what happened on a microscopic scale millions of years ago is tough. But that provides zero evidence that magic did it.
4) See 3 it is the same question. But it is very obvious that the proteins must have come from another source. You can make the stuff you need in a lab so it ain't impossible.
5) Show me a peer reviewed article that backs that up. If you accept that Hubble is photographing things hundreds of millions of light years away, you are accepting the universe is at least hundreds of millions of years old because it took the light that long to travel the distance.

What you are doing is picking at details and science does this all the time itself. If you were doing it in a rational way it would be fine. The fact is the fossil record is clear that life began simple and got more complicated. Any valid theory has to explain that. It also would need to explain the genetic similarities between species and mitocondrial DNA mappings of the human migrations around the world. Not to mention the millions of other little bits and pieces that exist. The fact that all the answers aren't there in no way means that it has to be completely another irrational theory that doesn't take the basic fact of the fossil record into account.

Answer 3

Well since you asked, I think 1 and 2 are arguments from ignorance, 3 and 4 are irrelevant to evolution (you could equally have tacked on, if evolution is true then why didn't my car start this morning), and 5 is blatantly untrue.

To answer 1) Macroevolution is evidenced by enormous numbers of observations of the fossil record, among other things. And no, why would a climbing, jumping, later gliding, later flying animals legs be bad? They would be adapted to its life style at each step of the way. That's how evolution works. Same goes for arms, face and digestive tract. Btw, speciation has been observed in modern populations - that is macroevolution.

And 2) The fossil record shows systematic change in form up the geological column, through countless branches of life. It shows MACROevolution in overwhelming abundance, from one species/genus/family etc to the next. What you are actually saying is that there is little fossil evidence of MICROevolution. This is because 1) very few organisms are every fossilised and then ever recovered (eg. on the subject of wings, how many passenger pigeon fossils have ever been found - there used to be billions of them), and 2) because you are concentrating on the rarest fossils, like terrestrial vertebrates. If you want to see the best fossil record, then you have to look at the incredibly abundant microscopic fossils like foraminifera, and yes there are billions of 'transitional fossils' among them.

Answer 4

1-Macro-evolution is the culmination of micro-evolution. Don't make the mistake of thinking they are 2 different things...they are not. Change is change, regardless of the scale.

2-Transitional fossils have been located. Creationists tend to ignore them. Archaeopteryx, for instance.

3- "It's still gotta be happening if there's still stages before us." This statement ignores some very important facts...namely, the conditions of the Earth are not what they were all those billion years ago. The land is no longer molten, the atmosphere has changed. Those conditions, as well as millions of others, contributed to the very first amino acids that eventually became life.

4- The proteins that make up DNA came first. The evidence for this rests in mitochondria, which, while being a building block for cells (and DNA) contains its own DNA.

5- The most updated science is still under scrutiny by the scientific community. There have been a few hypotheses concerning certain regions of space not being as old as once thought, but not that the universe itself is young. That's what they are though...hypotheses. Many questions still have to be answered. Questions such as: How do black holes play into these regions of space? How do these "young" regions interact with their surrounding areas? Much work still has to be done.

Your example of "dog" to golden retriever, german shepard, etc. is an example of specialization within a species, which is only one aspect of evolution. A better example of what is termed "micro-evolution" would be the finches on the Galapogos Islands. As I stated earlier though, the terms Micro and Macro are simply a game of semantics used by Creationists (and the Church) in an attempt to throw doubt on Evolution.

Answer 5

1) The major divergences among the chordates are very well documented. There is something like 10 species for each branch which are considered to be transitional forms.
2) They're still down in the rocks, idiot. You want us to come knock down your house so we can dig for them?
3) The natural affinities of proteins, nucleic acids and lipids is what caused the first cells to assemble.
4) The DNA obviously, the proteins are a secondary adaptation to increase the replication rate.
5) That's not a question. That's a lie.

Don't let yourself be tricked into thinking there is a difference between micro- and macroevolution. They are exactly the same process. If one of them is true, so is the other.

Answer 6

1) Macroevolution takes a looooonnnnnggggg time. We could not observe it in our lifetime. Taking a look at plants, you can observe the reduction of the gametopyhte generation as plants evolved from hepaticae to musci, eventually developing vascular systems that require a sporophyte dominant organism...

2) They were mutations, many became extinct very quickly. Do you know the conditions required to create a fossil? They do not come around very often. Why do people seem to think that everything that dies must be fossilized?

3) A reaction of amino acids and nucleotides catalyzed by intense heat

4) DNA is not made of proteins, it is made of nucleotides. DNA codes for proteins...

5) No it is not, cite examples. Carbon dating shows an old earth...

Chippy: DNA polymerase, the chemical that seeks out bases during DNA replication, will sometimes make a "mistake". This is known as a genetic mutation and can add new material to the gene pool. If the species is more likely to survive with this mutation the mutated version will eventually pass that trait onto the entire species, evolving it...

Answer 7

1) You don't have to see it in the present day to observe it. Science also deals in forensic evidence. As in this video... the genome of humans has been examined and compared against the genome of the ape, and we can now see where two ape chromosomes fused in our evolution, making our 46 (instead of their 48) chromosomes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M

2) There are plenty of intermediary fossils. Thousands of them. For common creationist claims about the fossil record and other areas of science...

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

3) Abiogenesis. It does not have to still be happening. The atmosphere and conditions are far different now than when abiogenesis would have taken place.

4) DNA could have evolved gradually from a simpler replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acidsA deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA -- all without any protein enzymes. (Taken from talk origins as well - a site all creationists should read so we can stop addressing the same questions repeatedly)


5) Um, no it's not. The majority of scientists agree that the earth is 4.6 billion years old.

Answer 8

First - the bible is not FACT. Saying the bible proves anything is akin to using Lord of the Rings to prove the existence of Hobbits and the magical land of Middle Earth.

Second - I have heard the macroevolution vs. microevolution debate before.

Creationists often assert that "macroevolution" is not proven, even if "microevolution" is, and by this they seem to mean that whatever evolution is observed is microevolution, but the rest is macroevolution. In making these claims they are misusing authentic scientific terms; that is, they have a non-standard definition, which they use to make science appear to be saying something other than it is.

Answer 9

"The book of Genesis specifically explains that God created all the animals in the sea and air and land in different days."

It specifically explains nada. It claims that God made stuff by basically waving his hands around and saying Viola! Out of nothing, no less. So, if you believe God made the entire universe and this planet and everything on it out of nothing, doesn't that make you an evolutionist? You people constantly says we think everything came from nothing - by that logic, so do creationists. There's nothing in the bible that explains the central nervous system, DNA, genetic mutation...which in and of itself proves evolution. The bible cannot be used as proof of itself! It's only a book! For the umpteenth time, by that logic, I can take any book ever written and say that what's in it in indisputable, and make a religion out of it.

Answer 10

Dreamstuff is authentic: information is utilized in mathematics and alcoholic beverages as a significant theory. while information is composed of observations made instantly by our senses, or circuitously by conversion into something which may be detected instantly by our senses. you won't be able to come across radio waves (EMF), as an get mutually. yet radio waves will be translated into mild waves and sound waves that you'll come across. Do you agree for that your television is showing the 'impressive' signal compared to the way it left the studio? Is that faith? Or is the information close adequate that you'll be able to settle for it? (surely there is extra to the signal that your television shows you commonly, even though it truly is an finished different tale.) Did I study your question on the internet? Did my visual reveal unit reveal a similar letters you typed? Do you even exist? Or is all of it in my mind's eye? there is not any 'information' which could make sure that you exist or that the web exists. there is although 'information' so a techniques as my senses can make sure. of direction they may be incorrect or significantly distorted (it truly is the position the 'proofed' beverages are available in). Your reasoning leads you down a unmarried highway: that you'll be able to by no ability be sensible that something is authentic or that something exists. which includes your self. the perfect you could ever do is to assemble adequate information to cajole your self. How a lot is adequate? Your call. in the period in-between, as for the spill: the cat did it.

Answer 11

in science your answer only has to be better than the others, yes evolution has some unanswered questions but to prove your theory is better you have to have better scientific evidence.
1.when has creationism been observed?

2. where are the fossils for humans from 6 billion years ago?> what about fossils from 10 billion years ago? if all life forms were created in 7 days why don't all life forms have fossils dating back billions of years?

3.how could God begin? what created it?

4.actually Carl Sagan answered this question in his TV series "Cosmos" fairly well but it takes like an hour to explain

5. Published in what scientific Journal?