For all evolutionists........?

Question

I was wondering why you still believe evolution is possible when there is so much evidence that contradicts it.

Evolution fails even to account for the building-blocks of a cell. The formation, under natural conditions, of just one single protein out of the thousands of complex protein molecules making up the cell is impossible.

Proteins are giant molecules consisting of smaller units called amino acids that are arranged in a particular sequence in certain quantities and structures[1]. These units constitute the building blocks of a living protein. The simplest protein is composed of 50 amino acids, but there are some that contain thousands.

The crucial point is this. The absence, addition, or replacement of a single amino acid in the structure of a protein causes the protein to become a useless molecular heap[2]. Every amino acid has to be in the right place and in the right order. The theory of evolution, which claims that life emerged as a result of chance, is quite helpless.

Answer 1

Evolution has 6 different levels of faith:
1. Cosmic evolution - origin of space , time
2. Chemical evolution - origin of elements, chemicals, etc...
3. Stellar evolution - origin of stars, planets...
4. Organic Evolution - origin of life
5. Macro evolution - changes in from one kind of being to another, such as from a hamster to a whale
6. Micro evolution - variations within kinds, such as from a wolf to a dog
Micro evolution isn't evolution in the sense of what the text book teaches. Micro evolution is simply genetic variation from the re-scrambling of genetic information that already exists.
Remember, speciation is a man-made label. Carlos Linnaeus' system of classification wasn't adapted until 1758, so speaking in terms of "kinds" is more appropriate.
The government school indoctrinator (aka: public school teacher) will show kids and examples of micro-evolution, which is scientific, and then switch the meaning of evolution suddenly to also mean the first 5 definitions that I gave at the top. This is deceitful and despicable and it goes on in a school near you.
There is no scientific evidence or explanation for the first 5 meanings of evolution. All they have are models of how it MIGHT have happened - that's not science. That's a belief, which means there is no more scientific reason to believe in evolution than in Creation. They both consist of things we can't see or explain. Seeing, explaining, and recreating would be science, and until that happens, evolution sure has it's work cut out for it.
Furthermore, as far as being a viable scientific theory, all the empirical evidence available in the natural world aligns with the Biblical account of creation and the flood with no quirks whatsoever. Evolution is constantly having to work kinks out of its ridiculous system.
Evolution is not science, it is a religion, and it is far less scientific by science's OWN standards than creation ever was.

For more:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/

BTW, in reference to Sailcat64's answer to this question - computers and cell phones were intelligently designed.

And for The Great Gazoo's answer - lab created life will also prove intelligent design.

Answer 2

There's nothing helpless about the chance combination of the right number of amino acids. If there were more possible ways in which carbon-based organic life could form, we probably would have detected extraterrestrial life by now. As it is, we've seen quite a bit of the area surrounding earth and there isn't a single sign of other life, intelegent or otherwise. Evolution may not account for the formation of proteins, but chance certainly does. It fits with the section of evolutional theory known as punctuated equilibrium, which states that for a long time there will be stasis, then, upon a chance, something drastic will change the nature of life. So, in our rapidly expanding universe, there is only one known instance where this chance combination has come together to form life. At any rate, it's easier to believe than that there is an omnipotent being who decided to put the amino acids into the right order and make a few of us. Why are you still religious when there are so many faithful people for every religious sect and when there is 'evidence contradicting it' (to use your own words)? Where did your god come from? There is no evidence to the contrary of evolution. The fact that it is unlikely is not by any means a disproval of it. Chance is a valid and crucial component of any progression over time. Once again, there is NO evidence against evolution.

Answer 3

So much evidence to contradict evolution? You didn't give any valid examples. Please don't say look in the bible. The "Goo" from which the building blocks of life HAS been duplicated in laboratories.

Your statement is without warrant:
"The crucial point is this. The absence, addition, or replacement of a single amino acid in the structure of a protein causes the protein to become a useless molecular heap[2]. Every amino acid has to be in the right place and in the right order. The theory of evolution, which claims that life emerged as a result of chance, is quite helpless."

I guess you never heard of birth defects, or natural spontaneous abortion ( not medically induce abortion, but by natural causes). And the religious belief that god created man about 5,600 years ago has been proved wrong so many times. I know sound science will never change the beliefs of a religious person, but if YOU can show physical proof of god then please do so.

Answer 4

Garbage in, garbage out. If you make false premises and false assertions you can convince yourself of anything, that 1 = 2, anything.

Proteins form countless times a second under natural conditions, so clearly that is not impossible.

It is false that altering a single amino acid in the structure of a protein necessarily causes that protein to be useless. Study everything about this in any mainstream teaching of molecular genetics. It's fascinating how small areas of a protein are critical to its function, while much is not, and how some critical DNA sequences are preserved from species to species while others vary steadily, becoming more different over time, making it possible to track the history of human beings with mitochondrial or Y-chromosome DNA sequences or much longer history of one species leading to others. You would also learn how useful mutations are often duplications or other alterations, not a single base pair change. You would also learn an outline of what mutations shaped the 300 million year of the mammalian Y chromosome, which can be reconstructed from studying all mammals alive today, how they are different from all other animals this way. That is if you want to learn anything.

Then there's fossils, comparative anatomy, population genetics, ...

It's true that science doesn't know everything about anything, whether that's the universe, life, consciousness, or especially questions that we can't get data about. Even physics is incomplete. So is evolutionary biology. Why do people tell lies about this? It's hard to get precise data about that. Why do you lie about it? Perhaps you're just repeating someone else's lies, not knowing any better. Perhaps it's something else. A lot of people know the falseness in what you wrote. They're not helpless. I'm sure God knows the falseness in what you wrote. Have you thought about that?

Answer 5

I save so much time reading questions like yours -- I never have to read the whole thing.

I stopped at "Evolution fails even to account for the building-blocks of a cell."

No, honey, the theory of evolution does not account for the basic amino acids required to build a living cell. The theory of evolution is not about the _origin_ of life -- it's about the _development_ of the wide variety of life forms that we observe.

Then I read your final sentence: "The theory of evolution, which claims that life emerged as a result of chance...." and saved more time by stopping again.

One more time: The theory of evolution says nothing about where life came from or how it began -- only about how it developed.

And chance is not involved. Mutations are random and unpredictable, yes; but there's nothing random or unpredictable about natural selection: some survive and some don't. The ones that survive will pass on their genes; the rest will die out and be lost forever. C'est la vie. Literally.

-- You have been misinformed. Or deliberately lied to, I don't know which. Go get yourself a real education -- you deserve it. Good luck.

Answer 6

Science takes a lot of time and patience because it requires physical proof and investigation. There is still an infinite amount of scientific information to be discovered about the natural world. Scientists are willing to admit they don't know everything and they continue to explore and learn. Religion on the other hand isn't expected to offer any proof, just acceptance of an idea. Do you still believe the world is flat? Or was that also another scam by the scientific community?

Answer 7

I don't understand why you guys try to undermine each others positions on this - surely if you have a working hypothesis explaining how bread is made, that doesn't disprove the loaves and fishes story, right? Right, because regardless of the accepted means of making bread, we believe that's not how it happened, because we have faith that a miracle occured.

I don't like the guy, but Richard Dawkins makes a persuasive point that if theologists insist on meddling with the scientific process, scientists will start meddling with the theological process, when the two can and have co-existed peacefully.

All we need to do is say "that's one way a species can occur - I just don't believe it happened that way" - please end the madness, before we start trying to disprove baking!

Answer 8

What year did you drop out of high school? You clearly know nothing about evolution apart from what your preacher has taught you. You say there is contradicting evidence? Show it to me. What is your source, send me a link at [e-mail] and we'll see. I will give you evidence for evolution if you care to know about the topic (which your question implies you do not, since you did not take the time to learn about it).

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/

Go read about non-coding DNA, or DNA functional redundancy, or DNA retroviruses. Oh, and go take an elementary biology course before you make false claims about the workings of amino acids.

Answer 9

We believe it's possible because we learned from science sources instead of from your incestuous creation science outfits. Creation science institutions know ***NOTHING*** about evolution. They get most of their information from *each other*, and on the rare occasion that they do read a science work, they invariably misquote, misrepresent, misunderstand, or misattribute what they read. They do this because their goal is to validate what they already believe, so everything that goes into their heads gets filtered first.

The result is that the things that creationism apologists told you about evolution are NOT what biologists say. You have been fed a straw man by people who arrogantly think that they know more about the topic than the people who work with it for a living!

A major clue that you're on the wrong track is that you're asking this question in Religion & Spirituality. Evolution is a topic of BIOLOGY, not religion. You're not going to get reliable answers about evolution from people (apologists) who know nothing about it.

The reason creationists say that evolution fails to account for the the building blocks of cells is that they don't know anything about evolution. The reason they claim that evolution can't account for the complexity of proteins is that they don't know anything about evolution. The reason they claim that evolution says that life arose from chance is that THEY DON'T KNOW A DAMN THING ABOUT EVOLUTION.

There is NO evidence outside of apologists' delusions that contradicts evolution. Copious evidence from almost every branch of science points overwhelmingly to evolution as our origin. All you need to see this evidence is to read beyond your apologetics. Go to the library. Ask a biologist. Search the Web. Whenever a creationist tells you something about evolution, ask for a source that goes back to a biologist, and then--this is important!--look up that source yourself. I've seen so many misquotes, misrepresentations, and outright lies that i cannot take an apologist's word for *anything*.

@Vincent - no offense, but your answer is total bullsh!t. Your "6 levels of faith" is an invention of a creationist (Dr. Dino, i think), and bears no resemblance to anything resembling science. You all need to stop getting your science information from creationists. They don't know jack sh!t about science.

@Batty 1970 - drdino.com is a creationist Web site, unqualified to say *anything* about science; and the jailbird in charge of it is a known liar and all-around jerk. If there is a fact on that Web site, it is purely by accident.

Answer 10

Impossible, no. Improbable, yes. All of the necessary amino acids were present in the early oceans. The constant churning of the tides would be the perfect "breeding" ground for amino acid combinations that were brought together by the currents to reproduce and consume the rest of the amino acids in the act of reproduction and natural selection. Your assertions are woefully inaccurate.

Answer 11

Evolution is a fact and a theory.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

There is no evidence that contradicts it and literally mountains of evidence for it.

Evolution need not account for the building blocks of a cell. It assumes life exists and explains the changes in species (i.e., the change in allele frequency from generation to generation in a population). You may be confusing it when abiogenesis here which is a separate topic.

"The theory of evolution, which claims that life emerged as a result of chance, is quite helpless."
Well, no wonder you think it's helpless - that's not evolution at all! For one thing, it is not about how LIFE emerged - that IS abiogenesis - it is about the origin of species (Charles Darwin) and is, in fact, a NON-RANDOM process. It has a small ingredient of chance - mutations - which in itself is not even 100% random. It is driven by four other forces including natural selection which is completely non-random.