Questions for Evolutionists?

Question

The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions. Some well-meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man’s questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory—it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science.

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

2. Where did matter come from?

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

13. When, where, why, and how did: a) Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two- and threecelled intermediates?) b) Single-celled animals evolve? c) Fish change to amphibians? d) Amphibians change to reptiles? e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?

14. When, where, why, how, and from what did: a) Whales evolve? b) Sea horses evolve? c) Bats evolve? d) Eyes evolve? e) Ears evolve? f) Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)? b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose? f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones? h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? i) The immune system or the need for it?

Answer 1

Yes.

Answer 2

> 1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
What does this have to do with biological evolution?
Where did God come from?

> 2. Where did matter come from?
Another non-evolution question.
Maybe the Big Bang was a real event, in which case our kind of space and matter were made in the Big Bang.
Where did the Chaos and Void mentioned in the Bible come from?

> 3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
Another non-evolution question.
Inherent in our kind of space, which was made "during" the Big Bang.
We were made in God's image, ... but why does God resemble chimpanzees?

> 4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
Another non-evolution question.
Who says it's perfectly organized? Anyway, mass has gravity, and gravity tends to clump things together.
Can God create a lump of rock so heavy He can't lift it with his chimpanzee-like hands?

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
Another non-evolution question.
Inherent in the properties of our kind of space and our kind of matter.

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?
Another non-evolution question.
Speculation, that self-replicating macromolecules formed as a result of physical action (e.g. lightning, UV) on the molecules present on the early Earth ("primordial soup").

> 7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
Reproduction is a property of life. Life didn't "learn."

> 8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Another of its kind. Look up "sex pilus" and "pilus receptor."

> 9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
The selfish gene, buddy. I want to increase my allele set frequency in succeeding generations. I know I am not going to live forever -- but my genes can live on through my descendants.
The individual has a drive to survive AND reproduce.

> 10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
a) example: people who are heterozygous for sickle cell anemia are somewhat more resistant to malaria. Therefore, someone who is heterozygous for sickle cell anemia is a new improved variety in a part of the world where malaria is prevalent.
example: dachshund breeders throw away anything with long legs. Therefore, the short legs, a mutation, is a new improved variety to a dachshund breeder.
b) recombining English letters can give you a phonetic approximation of some Chinese words. Recombining those can give you a Chinese book. Selection at work: Throw away anything that a Chinese person wouldn't find familiar.

> 11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
No. Quite the opposite. Consider: We were made in God's image. Why would God also do the same favor for chimps?

> 12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable.
No it doesn't. Natural selection favors those who reproduce. In a changing environment, the selection factors may also change -- and thus the species may change or go extinct.

> How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
I look into our own genome and see "fossil genes" that are inactive. Imagine if some of those, through a mutation in a control sequence, became reactivated. Maybe in a different environment, some of those would be "new and improved."

13. When, where, why, and how did:
a) Single-celled plants become multicelled?
*shrug* A long time ago!
> (Where are the two- and threecelled intermediates?)
We have multicellular aggregates of similar algae cells. Consider some of those as indicative of what the intermediate would have been like.
b) Single-celled animals evolve?
Likely some pre-existing autotrophic eukaryotic cells lost their ability to be autotrophic.
c) Fish change to amphibians?
A long time ago.
d) Amphibians change to reptiles?
A long time ago.
e) Reptiles change to birds?
Never. Birds are the descendants of certain dinosaurs.
> (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?
Just fine. Changes occurred in small steps. Each new species was adapted to its environment well enough to reproduce.

14. When, where, why, how, and from what did: a) Whales evolve?
A long time ago, from some terrestrial mammal that liked the beach.
b) Sea horses evolve?
A long time ago. They're fish.
c) Bats evolve?
A long time ago, probably from an animal sort of like a flying shrew (picture a flying squirrel, but an insectivore).
d) Eyes evolve?
Several times. From light-sensitive spots.
e) Ears evolve?
Can you hear me now? Lots of different kinds of vibration sensors.
f) Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
Integument protects against the hostile environment.

15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)? b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose? f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones? h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? i) The immune system or the need for it?

They co-evolved. You don't get a "one happened first, making a partial or useless critter out of its owner" situation. That only happens with Creationism -- the plants being created before the sun, for example.

Answer 3

Your premise is wrong. Evolution is not about the origin of man or the universe. Your questions make assumptions that are not true. I'll list a few of them...

1. It didn't "come from" anywhere, it was created in the big bang (which btw, has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

2. See #1.

3. Who cares where they came from, the fact is, they exist and the scientific method is the best way we have of predicting how they function. Once again, nothing to do with evolution.

4. Matter is not perfectly organized. Still nothing to do with evolution.

5. See #4

6. Still nothing to do with evolution. You're talking about abiogenesis.

7. See #6

8. Probably similar things that parameciums reproduce with today. They don't _have_ to exchange genetic material, but they will if there's another paramecium around.

9. Who cares _why_ they want to reproduce, the fact is that they do. Now we need to devise a theory that explains it, perhaps because those that didn't try to reproduce, didn't, and they all died. Therefore, everything that's left are the decendants of those that strove to reproduce, inheriting their predisposition to reproduction.

10. Please refer to pretty much any species alive today which descended from simpler forms of life.

11. If there was a creator, he was retarded because he copied the same design flaws from species to species. For example, the appendix in humans and monkies that serves no useful purpose except to become infected, burst, and kill us (after bringing us excruciating pain).

12. Mutation and variances within the same species.

13. This is a complicated question and has been answered already. Suffice to say that if you did a little research, you could find the answer. The short answer is, little by little. Something like an eye wouldn't evolve from scratch. It'd start as a photosensitive cell, which would, in ensuing generations, be a clump of photosensitive cells (which would give it an advantage over it's less gifted brothers). Then some of them might have the cells grouped inside a small indent, which would (because they have an advantage) evolve into a cavity, which then fills with fluid and viola, you have an eye.

14. Assuming you took biology in high school, there's no way I'm going to be able to tell you in a single post what years of schooling failed to drill into your head. Take some courses and learn something.

15. See # 14.

Answer 4

geez... be serious

most of your questions are all about the Big Bang... you should read it and check it out somewhere. Maybe ask somebody to explain it to you if the problem's you don't understand the theory.

also, stupid question... why do living things reproduce? it's not about having less resources for yourself.. if you don't reproduce, how will your genes carry on? you'll just die without leaving anything behind

again... check out a dictionary and look up the word mutation.. (occurs when a DNA gene is damaged or changed in such a way as to ALTER THE GENETIC MESSAGE carried by that gene).. therefore creating new stuff. Not only better, but obviously due to natural selection the bad results won't be carried on and the good ones will.

then.. questions 13 to 15 are all in books. You want a freaking essay for an answer. At least evolution has backup.. either morphological, fossil, genetic, anatomic.. Creationism's only answer is: god wanted it to

Answer 5

It's a theory for a reason. Maybe look at all the holes in any religion and reconsider this question. For an answer to number 9 animals and plants have no idea of their own mortality and simply follow urges. One of these urges is reproduction which is in every species because they evolved from smaller mutlicellular organisms that did the same basic things.

Answer 6

1. Home Depot. God did it, they helped.

2. It doesn't matter.

3. George W. Bush made the laws of the universe. He's the decider.

4. You obviously haven't met my ex-wife.

5. Energy Drinks.

6. Yes.

7. Internet pr0n.

8. A reproductive organ, such as a tooth.

9. All bugs are the same.

10. Watch X-Men.

11. Is it possible that if grasshoppers had shotguns birds wouldn't eat them?

12. Forty-two.

13. With the powah of laav, babeh.

14. They all evolved from beige. You can't go wrong with beige.

15. The blue one.

Answer 7

Oh for the love of science (get my South Park quote in early). Go and read some Richard Dawkins and some Stephen Hawkins.

Every one of you points shows a MASSIVE lack of understanding, not only of biology and evolution, but of science in general. Even your statement "The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions" is flawed. A theory is not meant to provide "answers" it is meant to provide an operating paradigm within which further postulations and extrapolations can be made, while fulfilling the basic principles as laid down by other preceding theories (which in turn get overturned periodically e.g. pure Newtonian physics, it lasted centuries but relativity blew it away).

I would also suggest that you read some Karl Popper so you have a clue about the philosophy of science.

Now please. PLEASE. Go back to the theology board and pretend that it is a more reasonable hypothesis that God has always existed, that he created the world and everything in it in 6 days and that all the horrors of the world are part of some ineffeble divine plan.

I am not going to waste my time answering your points, as we both know that no matter what I say or how well I say it, I am not going to change your mind.

Answer 8

At first evolutionism is only about life, Darwin didn't want to explain where universe come from, or matter or energy, or physic laws.....He only explained why there are different species, and why some extincted.......etc etc...
I think that evolutionism is only a theory and not a law because it's not so complete to answer all questions...but onestly I don't see any good alternative at the moment.....and how do you consider the fact that human beeings are getting higher and higher(in medieval castles you can see such small doors!! incredible, in only 600 years men got about 25-35 cm higher)

I can't answer your 15 specific questions, but I'd like to ask you some questions, about a different field, but similar for mind, this will probably help you to reflect about the questions you made:
For example about Cars and machines...
- When the first machine was built if to build a machine you need another machine(let me see how can you build a drill without using any machine),and who did?

-Look at cars, they are all quite similar, 4 wheels, 1 engine usually in the front in modern cars, all have brakes, gear, lights....are all of them designed by a single designer? or are they similar because this characteristics are the best to answer to similar requests?(some different species are similar without any common ancestor, for example in Austalia there are some species similar to rest of the word, but they are marsupial instead of placentated) so similarities are determined by common needs, so 2 species can evolve in the same direction without starting from a common ancestor.

- Which car component was developped first? the engine, the brakes, the wheels, the structure, the seats?.........actually the first cars had weak engines,they travelled slowly so they needed only weak brakes, being slow they had weak sollecitations so weak structures were enough, so they were quite light and they didn't needed strong wheels......but cars evolved......the engines became more powerful, cars became faster,they needed more powerful brakes, more resistant structures,became weighter and needed more advanced wheels.....isn't this similar to evolution? only the best solutions survive....worst technological solutions are abandoned and "die"....

Answer 9

Tsk tsk tsk... You are getting your information about science from a conservative pundit. Doesn't it make more sense to get your information about science from a SCIENTIST?

Let's review what happened last time we accepted scientific assertions from a conservative radio talk show host. Remember when Rush Limbaugh said "Folks, hold on to your hats, the envirowhackos are back and they are telling us it's getting hotter and they are telling us it is our fault for driving SUV's. Have you ever heard anything so ridiculous, so patently false?" And he wrote chapter after chapter about how the scientists were wrong and about how there were "other" better scientists who questioned the real scientists.

And look how that ended up! Daily reports of tornadoes, hurricanes, supercells, blizzards because the Great Lakes don't freeze over any more, and the global scientific community came together and said, "These liars are wrong. If we don't reduce our emissions, we will render the planet uninhabitable."

So, if you have a question about the theory of evolution ask it. And ask it of a real scientist. You are repeating questions that Ann Coulter put in your head. Ann, like Rush, is a paid moutpiece for the republicans. She is paid to trick you into thinking the republicans are on your side. But they are not. They are on the side of the CEO's. Bush's tax cuts are cutting Hershey's Chocolate jobs, Daimler Chrysler jobs, and that is just what is in the news TODAY.

Answer 10

1, 2, and 3 are pretty good questions. The answer(s) to them really aren't known.

4 simply reveals a profound ignorance of entropy

5 is simply a re-hash of 1 thru 3

6 and the rest are just re-hashes of the same old, tired, worn-out questions that creationists have been asking since Darwin published 'the Origin of Species'.

However, question 9 *does* reveal your profound ignorance of the Bible. Read Genesis 1:22 before you embarrass yourself further. And note that it does *not* say anything about 'in your own image'.

But I have a question for you. How do you 'know' that evolution wasn't 'invented' by the creator?

Actually, the real question is why anyone would spend time trying to explain things to you that you have, rather obviously, rejected out of hand and don't want to understand in the first place.


Doug

Answer 11

The difference between scientific answers and theological answers is that the former can admit ignorance. I admit (and Einstein or any other scientists) will readily admit that they don't know, or that some facts are still unknown at the present state of technology. Theological postulate ("Providential higher entities") are afraid to admit there is something that "God" cannot account for.
The answers to a lot of the questions you ask are in some textbooks and / or Wikipaedia . The rest is still either questions that has no meaning in the context of science ( "Where does space come from ...?") or is meaningful but still unknown to science today.