Here's an argument against evolution that uses only logic. How would you argue against it logically?

Question

A cell, is a factory man! Your body has millions and millions of parts that all do a specific function necessary for survival. That's much more complicated than a car, yet if you ran across one in the woods you'd have no doubt it wasn't a plant.

If we evolved, how did we get from a multi-celled glob of goo to a more complicated organism where cells all work together? You need a circulatory system for that, I guess that evolved too...but wait, for that to work you need a heart or something to move the blood (which also had to evolve of course)...but wait, you also need a stomach, including juices, for digestion along with the bowels, and kidneys or the like to clean the blood and a waste system to get rid of the waste. Hmmm....

But wait, how did this first organism multiply? You can't have the cells dividing anymore because you now have internal cells, so you need sexual reproduction...but wait, how did these develop? Why do the male and female organ fit together so very, very well? How did the sperm and egg develop AT THE SAME TIME so that they both must come together to create a new life? How did breasts develop to feed the young? What about a uterus? Now THAT'S a complicated organ!

Keep in mind that all of the above and much, much more ABSOLUTELY had to develop in the same generation or there could be no life as we know it today. It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does in Christianity.

Funny. Several evolutionists saying bad things about the question, yet not no real answer. Can somebody do better than that?

Oh my. Insults are a sign of a weak mind or a weak argument. Regardless, three reasonable answers, but they still don't explain the aread of time between a simple multi-cellular organism and a complex organism. By the way, I can form a complete thought and do understand the "theory" of evolution. I'm asking for you to fill in some blanks...if you can.

Answer 1

I hope you have noticed that not one person even tried to answer your question.

They tell you, you are crazy but not a one even tries to give you one example.

This shows where their logic lies. There is none to their theory.

Evolution scientists don't even believe this garbage. They continue to spout it because otherwise they would have to admit to God being, and they refuse to do that.

Answer 2

If you look at the workd of microbes, you will find single celled organisms that live on their own. No cooperation with others. They gather nutrients and reproduce.

Then, there is a class of single celled organisms which live in colonies. There are advantages to this arrangement. If one cell dies, the others in the colony can readily absorb what nutrients it releases. They may be protected from harsh conditions - if something toxic floats by, the organisms around the edges might die but ones in the middle might be protected and live to pass on the genes of the group.

Then there are organisms which bind together into a complex orgainism where different cells specialize in some functions while other cells specialize in another. There is no circulatory system because they live in water and the water carried things back and forth.

There are organisms that have fluids in their system that do not circulate but just move by convection. There are very simple open circulatory systems that move stuff around. There are closed circulatory systems with very simple pumps and vessels. There are comples circulatory systems.

All these things exist NOW. They survive at variable states of complexity. It seems simple to see how they could have evolved one to another with gradually more complex morphology and function that allowed the organism to do something the simpler one could not do.

Hmmmm?

Answer 3

Maybe the reason you aren't getting as many good answers as you want is because you are asking this in R&S, instead of in Biology, which is where the people who know about biology happen to hang out. (That's why I didn't see this question until just now.)

But people who are saying you aren't getting good answers from the evolutionists, just aren't reading.

In particular, I recommend re-reading the answers from skeptic, Missing Link, Eleventy, Black Dragon, information_police, and novangelis. These are all good answers, and address your question specifically.

And by the way, it is absolutely a legitimate answer to point out a fundamental flaw in the question. If you are asking how the theory of evolution explains all these things, but your question shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory ... then it is absolutely legitimate to point that out.

I would gently suggest that your long question is basically repeating one fundamental flaw over and over. Namely, you subdivide a body into *parts* instead of *functions* ... and then ask how all those *parts* evolved.

For example, you see a complete vertebrate digestive system, and break it down into *parts* (stomach, digestive juices, bowels, kidneys, etc.). If you do that, and then remove a part (say the kidneys) from a working vertebrate digestive system, then of course it stops working.

But that's NOT how an organ like the kidneys evolved. It is the *function* that evolved, not just the *part*. At some point in evolution, the accumulation of nitrogen waste from metabolism became a limiting problem (it became a barrier to further evolution ... evolution could not proceed in certain directions without solving the nitrogen problem). So cells begin to specialize in removing nitrogen, then a tissue type, then a structure of those tissue types (an organ), and that organ gets more and more efficient at the single task of removing nitrogen, and millions of years later we have the organ we now call "kidneys", that does one job *really* well ... removing nitrogen.

All of your questions ... and all such "irreducible complexity" arguments ... are answered in exactly the same way. (From the parts of the circulatory system, to reproductive gametes and organs, and to pugwashjw's question of the eye.) Look at the *function* first, and THEN the evolution of the *parts* becomes clear.

Functions can emerge slowly, piecemeal ... served first by specialized cells, then tissue, then structures, then organs, then organ systems, and in many cases entire organisms (as in the case of an entire ecosystem, where different organisms serve different functions in that ecosystem).

And evolution is a long, long, process of many functions all evolving at once, at many levels, IN RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENT. And all of them influencing each other ... one function either producing a need for, or enabling, an improvement in another function. Evolution is the long, slow accumulation of tiny improvements to the cells, tissues, structures, organs, etc. that serve these functions. Four billion years of tiny improvements. That is all evolution is.

P.S. As long as we're in R&S, I'll add one last comment (at the suggestion of my g/f, who knows I'm a closet believer in God). To me, evolution is miraculous! If ever you want evidence of divine creation, look at evolution. To me, it makes life far more profound and meaningful to know that it took God four billion years of small acts of triumph, defeat, beauty, and pain, than six days of effortless magic.

Answer 4

Well, you may have wanted to get an intelligent answer, and it looks like you only got a couple from the evolutionists. I agree with the "insults are a sign of a weak mind or a weak argument" in the context of a debate anyway. Darwin took a premise and built a theory to surround that premise. Some of these people should read the theory and actually think about it. The answer above about species adapting to their environment is adaptation, not evolution. I'm waiting for the missing link (sorry evolutionists, but there isn't one). I don't expect there will be one. I know they won't like this, but God Bless you!

Answer 5

Small multicellular clusters do not require circulatory systems. They have been observed to evolve from single celled organisms in the laboratory.

The simplest animals -- the sponges -- probably evolved from their circulatory mechanism (I won't go as far as call it a system). Sponges move enormous amounts of water using cells with flagella. These cells closely resemble the choanoflagellates, some of which are free living and some which are colonial -- living in clusters. Although sponges first appeared about 630 million years ago, the precursors in the sequence of single cell, colony, and organism have survived to this day.

Internal cells can replicate -- observed phenomenon. Sexual reproduction existed at the single cell level and preceded the sperm and egg. Single celled organisms capable of sexual and asexual reproduction exist. Breasts are modified sweat glands. The uterus is a fairly simple organ. Kidneys are not needed until you live exclusively on land. You can dialyze waste products against water. Your lack of facts and assertions contrary to observations in nature are astounding.

Answer 6

These are not bad questions.

We didn't even begin as cells, not the complicated "factories" that we see today. We began even simpler, most likely a simple organic compound, a random strain of RNA. The chance of this forming may be 1 in a million, but considering there are a billion billion planets, the odds were high.

Cells work together because when they don't, you die, and you don't have children, and your non-working genes don't get passed on.

Each organ can be traced back into stages and primitive forms. I can list them here obviously but they are on Wikipedia. Wiki "evolution of the eye" for example. Hope this helped.

Email me if you want real answers [e-mail]. If not, just choose the person that agrees with you as best answer and move on knowing less than you did when you started.

Answer 7

You leave out a lot of things to maker this whole thing work.

Organisms interact with the environment, as the environment changes, which it does over time, organisms either adapt to the change or die.

Organisms that adapt reproduce with the adaptation, survival instinct.

The adaptation becomes the standard until the next environmental change, when the choice again becomes change or die.

The logic of evolution isn't hard to follow if you keep all the relevant parameters in.

Evolution slows when a species gets evolved enough that it can move to a more suitable environment instead of having to change or die.

Answer 8

So you're suggesting that all these things developing over BILLIONS OF YEARS WORTH of time is less believable than an invisible being taking sand/dirt & magically turning it into a man..... right? Like a dehydrated "just add water" human?! Is that what you believe?

And the world was created 6000 ago which was about 1000 years after glue was invented by HUMANS, right? So.... did god use that glue to hold the world together or what?

Edit: "yet not no real answer" proves that you have "yet not no" education. Why should we all waste our time explaining to a dunce how the universe came to be when all you will do is shoot down all evidence that isn't in favor of the bible's interpretation of how the universe was created?!

Answer 9

It is clear that you have no idea what you are talking about or how to formulate a thought. You claim that this is an argument against evolution, but this is not a argument at all, but a series of poor questions. You claim that your "argument" uses only logic, but in fact there is no logic at all to it, as you provide no premises. What you have is a pathetic attempt to question what you do not believe in, wrapped up in a beautiful title that only the most dense of people might find relevant or accurate.

Answer 10

This has been explained over and over again in many books. Of course it's easier to just say some bozo took a lump of clay blew his bad breath on it - - - it became a living person.
To some people, this is completely understandable while the scientific version has them baffled.
You asked about bowels. Explain how the lump of mud has a bowel movement. The whole darn lump of mud looks like a bowel movement. Is that your creation ?

Answer 11

Your biggest mistake in this question is thinking that all of these things had to evolve at the same time - they did not. Many organisms exist today without some of these things or they are in more simple phases.

All of your objections have responses but you've written so many that it would be impossible to answer them all here.


EDIT: If people are criticizing your question, it is because the question is flawed and contains false premises (namely the ones listed above).

It would be as if I asked you "Because a Buddhist wrote the Bible, don't you think we should just follow Buddhism directly?"

Then when you went on to tell me that a Buddhist did not write the Bible and was in fact written by many people, I came back and said "You're not answering the question."


Many people probably do not want to go into a long answer with you because it is apparent that you do not want an answer. Ask yourself honestly: would you really consider looking at an answer to these questions?

It is doubtful you would because if you were really interested, you would have done some research already and found answers to your question (They all have good explanations that are readily available).

If I am wrong, and you are sincere in your question, look here to start:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB340.html

If you have questions, I will help you through them. If not, we must conclude that you are simply covering your ears and yelling "la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la."

Your choice.