What? more problems with evolution?

Question

If you are an evolutionist, you believe that natural processes formed all present life from chemicals to one-celled organisms through stages of "higher" organisms, culminating in humans, and furthermore, that this process, being driven by natural selection and random chance, took billions of years, and therefore the Earth and the whole universe is several billion years old. I'm going to describe eight specific reasons why the theory of evolution is seriously flawed and why an intelligent Creator must have designed and created the universe.

1. Information Theory
One important argument against evolution is the fact that information always requires an intelligent mind. It appears to be a real law of nature that information can never develop of its own accord. It is like the way a book is much more than just the paper and ink that comprises its physical form. The information inside it can only be produced (and then understood and used) by an intelligent being. The information in books is intended to be conveyed to another intelligent being.

Life itself also contains information. All life contains the genetic information to both make it run and, under the right circumstances, reproduce itself. Linguistics shows that DNA is literally a language containing four letters, and comparisons to computer science show that DNA is the most compact form of information that we know of, more compact that any form of data storage that humans have made. Originally, this information had to come from an intelligent being.

2. Mutations and Variation of Species
According to evolution, mutations are supposed to be the mechanism by which species evolve new traits and become more complex. However, genetics has shown that mutations are almost always harmful and always destroy information rather than creating it. As point 1 shows, information has to come from an intelligent being, and so natural mutations cannot create genetic information that is not already in the genetic code. Individual members of a species exhibit various ranges of their traits, and traits can even be bred to extremes, as we have done with many different varieties of dogs, but all dogs are still dogs and still produce dogs, and they all (except for possible inconvenient size differences) can interbreed. And if breeders attempt to breed the most extreme value of a trait, they usually find a genetic limit on how far they can take it. A dog will not grow as large as an elephant even if breeders keep breeding the largest dogs, for example.

Extreme variation of a species can produce a group that cannot interbreed with the original group, but while this is a new species by the definition that different species cannot normally interbreed, this is still just a subset of the original group, not an entirely different creature. This variation does happen, and is sometimes called micro-evolution, but this is most definitely not proof for macro-evolution, the changing of one species into another species. This shows that evolutionists' efforts to use such examples as the peppered moths, Galapagos finches, and fruit flies is futile, as these are all examples of variation within a species and not evidence for anything more.

3. The Second Law of Thermodynamics
The second law of thermodynamics itself opposes evolution also. Evolution says that natural selection will select for traits that make the creature more suited to its environment and also more complex. A better working creature has more complexity and less randomness, correct? This is despite the fact that the mutations are random? (Why do we say "descent" and "descendants" if ancestors are supposed to be lower forms of life than their descendants?) The second law essentially says that energy becomes less and less available in a system and entropy is always increasing. In other words, disordered states are much more likely than ordered states, so a natural system left to itself will always move toward a more chaotic state, not a more ordered state.

4. Embryological Development
Evolutionists often talk about "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" and claim that human embryos go through the stages of evolution as they develop in the womb. I was taught that in high school biology as well, but that idea actually originated solely from some drawings of embryos that Ernst Haeckel drew in the 19th century. Fairly recently, it's been brought to light that he faked those drawings. Modern imaging techniques show that animal embryos look very different from each other and from human embryos. Have you ever seen pictures of human embryos? By eight weeks or so, the general shape is all there in miniature: head, body, limbs, looking nothing like an animal. The early development probably looks similar to other vertebrates to some extent, but ultimately, small differences early on become magnified as the embryo grows, until the different features are clearly apparent, and these differences form a unique pattern of development for each kind of life. And an embryo must start from a single cell because an egg is a single cell. That says nothing about descent from single-celled organisms.

5. Chemical Complexity
There are serious chemical problems with the beginning of evolution, meaning the formation of the first amino acids and such compounds of life from a mixture of chemicals. One simple problem is the fact that randomly-forming amino acids will be an equal mixture of left-handed and right-handed molecules, but every single amino acid used in living things today is left-handed. Right-handed amino acids do not work in the bodies of living things. This chirality cannot be the product of natural random processes.

A second chemical problem is that of reactivity. Proteins are formed from a very specific sequence of many amino acids (all of which must be left-handed, of course), but these sequences do not correspond at all to the reactivity of the amino acids with each other. In a randomly-forming protein, the most reactive amino acids will bind together first, and then less reactive ones later. Also, there are many different orders of the same amino acids due to the way they could bind to either end of the chain. Producing a specific protein for a specific function randomly is mathematically and chemically impossible even without the chirality problem.

6. Probability
Not only are there real chemical problems with the idea that the necessary building blocks for life formed by themselves and assembled themselves into a living cell, the whole idea is mind-numbingly improbable. By improbable, I don't mean "unlikely, but possible by a remote chance." I mean that the probability against it is so high that it is literally impossible. Even the probability that the correct sequences of amino acids could come together to form a working cell is almost literally zero, let alone form more complex living things.

7. Transitional Forms
If creatures evolved gradually over time, then there must be many transitional forms between fully formed creatures. However, almost all fossils appear with fully formed features. Some fossils are of creatures that no longer exist, so they are unfamiliar to us compared to existing creatures, but they are still fully functional. If creatures really evolved, then there must be many times the number of transitional forms than fully-formed creatures, but the fossil record does not show this. Darwin probably just assumed that people had not found enough fossils yet, and future fossils would support his ideas, but despite the wealth of fossils that have been found since then, this plethora of transitional forms has not been found.

Note that I'm not even talking about how well fossils make sequences without all the "missing links," just that the ratio of transitional forms to fully-formed creatures is much lower than it should be if evolution were correct (it is probably close to zero, in fact). Even the forms we now think are transitional are probably just creatures we don't understand yet.

8. Vestigial organs
Years ago, biologists thought that living things had many different organs and parts that were the remnants of functioning parts from the past but currently served no known function. Some examples from humans are the appendix and the tonsils, both of which are now known to play a role in the immune system. Of course, not knowing a function does not prove there is no function: there can always be a function that we do not understand yet. Most of the other historically vestigial parts are also known to have functions now as well. Evolutionists try to use supposedly vestigial parts as evidence for evolution, but even if there were any vestigial parts, the change is in the wrong direction. If anything, these parts would have devolved from something functioning to something non-functioning. Again, this is a loss of information and hardly support for macro-evolution.

Conclusion
I hope the preceding points have given you some idea of the grave problems that evolutionists have encountered when trying to fit the physical evidence to their theory. Not only does the fossil record not support the theory, but several individual scientific laws directly contradict it! Furthermore, while natural selection as a method of genetic variation within a species has certainly been observed both inside and outside of the lab, neither macro-evolution (one species turning into another) nor spontaneous generation (living cells or organisms appearing from non-living chemical matter) has ever been observed. Evolution is scientifically impossible and only continues to be supported by evolutionists due to blind faith in their theory.

Answer 1

I'm going to (against my better judgement) respond to each of these. Pretty much all of my comments have been backed up by scientific investigation...if you want specific sources, e-mail me and I'll send them to you (in order to try and keep this post as reasonably short as possible).

1. information theory--Information is just order. Any matter can have order, and, therefore, information. The only thing that humans do is give the order (information) meaning. The arrangement of molecules in a chocolate chip cookie has order, and, therefore, has information. The information may be meaningless to humans, but it is information nonetheless.

Your book metaphor is misleading, because the book cannot replicate itself, and, hence bears no semblance to the information contained in DNA.

And, yes, unfortunately, it has been shown that intelligent order (information) can arise from completely natrualistic, random causes, given enough time.

At any rate, it doesn't really matter. No information is being created or destroyed. Your book analogy better suits the environment, and the reader of the book is more like living organisms. The information gets transfered from the environment to the organism, just as information gets transfered from the book to the reader.

2. Mutations and variation of species. Since your first point fails, and your second point relies on your first being correct, your second point fails. More specifically:

--Your statement "natural mutations cannot create genetic information that is not already in the genetic code" is just not true. Deletions, insertions, etc., occur all the time, intrinsically changing the genetic code of that one cell. Also remember, in multicellular organisms, just because a mutation occurs in one cell and causes it to die (what would be considered a negaive mutation) doesn't mean it will have much effect on the rest of the organism.

--Your statement "genetics has shown that mutations are almost always harmful and always destroy information rather than creating it" is another fallacy. Yes, there are many harmful mutations. There are also helpful mutations. But, for the most part, mutations are benign, uneventful, don't do a thing to the organism's evolutionary fitness. And any mutation would be more considered an adjustment or change in information, not a destruction of information.

3. The second law of thermodynamics. First off, the laws of a physically closed system are not applicable in their present form to an open system. Whether you want to rate that system on the scale of the cell, the organism, the population, the ecosystem, the biome, or the planet, very few people would agree that it is a closed system.

Secondly, the second law of thermodynamics deals with spontaneous heat flow, not the order or complexity of things. It is not *necessarily* about disorder, although spontaneous heat loss *GENERALLY* is followed by more disorder. In fact, if you take the entire universe as the "closed" system, then the fact that entropy (disorder) on Earth decreases is fine as long as the universe overall does not exhibit decreased entropy (disorder). You can do the same at smaller scales, too.

4. embryology. Say what you want about Haeckel, his diagrams have been debunked now for quite some time. However, you do still see similar characters in most vertebrates, in most monocots, in most sac fungi, etc. For example, vertebrates do all have a notocord, a dorsal nerve cord, pharygeal pouches, and a post-anal tail at some point in development. Haeckel's diagrams don't matter as much as the embryos themselves, and within groups, they are remarkably similar at early stages, despite whatever claims you make about modern imaging technology.

5. Chemical complexity. Glycine has no handedness. And some bacteria use right-handed amino acids.

Not that it matters, because you imply that science has found the answer to the origins of life. On the contrary, there is no consensus on the origin of life expounded by the theory of evolution, only hypotheses that are being examined.

6. Probability. Calculation of odds for the origins of life are always going to be, at best, unusefull. You can't assume random chance, because random chance isn't relevant--evolution is directed by the environment. You can't assume that those original protein molecules have to take one particular form--they could have taken any number of forms. You can't assume that the proteins we use now were necessarily the proteins used by the first life form. And you can't ignore the fact that there were (more likely than not) innumerable trials going on at the same time.

7. Transitional forms. Your argument shows your inability to interpret the data. There are numerous transitional forms. And new ones will be found as more areas are opened up to paleontologists. To imply that we are going to find every transitional form for every organism is ludicrous. Fossils only form under certain conditions in the natural environment, and believing that an example of each transitional form for an organism a) wasn't scavenged, b) actually formed a fossil, and c) we are going to find it implies less probability than your assumption of the possibility of life from self-replicating organic molecules. If you only look at the amount of time paleontologists have been looking for fossils, finding them, and classifying them, then we have only scratched the surface.

8. Vestigial organs. Your definition of vestigial organs is not correct. A vestigial organ is one that does not have the same function as it previously did. Take whale hip bones, for example. They are obviously not needed for supporting posterior legs, but they are functional in the reproductive system. And they are vestigial organs.

You also state there is a directionality involved in evolving organisms. The theory of evolution does no such thing.

Conclusion--just want to leave one last thing...if ID is such a great theory, give evidence that living, multicellular, highly specialized vertebrates just "popped" into existence. In other words, have some of the "scientists" that push this hypothesis find some evidence that supports their ideas, instead of using existing evidence (that already supports evolution) against evolution. The fact that you try to discredit evolution does not imply that ID is any better, only that you don't understand what you are talking about, and that ID doesn't have any evidence to support its own claims.

Edit: jonmcn49--tending more and more to fall into that same line of thought, especially when I seen the cut and paste crap (from DrDino or creationscience or where ever) like this that gets put on here. Just couldn't resist this one, though, for some inexplicable reason...

Answer 2

Although I am neither a professor of biology or a religious person, I feel that religion is a belief, that cannot be explained where God was created/born or have a reasonable answer where He may exist or whether it is true or if people just started to make it up thousands of years ago.
But on the other hand, evolution, as I think can be explained, very reasonably and be understood, not just because of a book that may have been lies or someone that started making up stories thousands of years ago (I have nothing against religion or a rascist believing in the evolution). The book made by Darwin may be incorrect in some parts (i mean, it is very old and outdated information) but there are further scientific investigations.
There is thought, that there is another planet just like Earth (highly unlikely that there would be humans or animals that are like in Earth). Would God be there? Would, if the creatures that live there talked and had a intelligent mind, they believe in something that there may be a superior being on their planet as well?

And what IF scientists found the missing link for humans? Would people start changing their minds about religion? I highly doubt it.

this is merely my observations and opinions. Nothing personal for your belief and others.
I have friends who believe in their religions and have absolutely no problems with it (as long as they won't start preaching me or try to convert me into something when I didn't ask for it).

Answer 3

One is able to change his genetic limitations only to a certain level while being alive. The main key to evolution is the fact that genetic modifications are being strengthened in the children of an animal. Mutation occurs after several generations of children. This is proven, because mental illnesses or diseases can become stronger in a parent's child. Also, if I p.e. example am a good runner, if I ran marathons, than my children may have this talent as well, and it can be strengthened. Hence, the longer the life span, the slower a species will adapt, as they will breed at a later age. Insects p.e. die quickly hence they breed more quickly and will mutate faster. They, however, quit evolving, because they either cannot adapt to the environment, or because their adaptation is not required. The reasons why insects such as flies don't adapt, is because they must first survive a struggle and then breed in order to give significant modifications to their brethren. This doesn't happen as they get smacked before they breed.

Answer 4

So are bees then intelligent beings? Ever seen their little dances? They have certain postures in order to explain things to their fellows. Whale song, elephant rumbles, cats, dogs, nearly every animal communicates in some way, shape, or form. And yes, information can develop of its own accord. What is instinct? That is common knowledge (assuming normality). All writing is is a form of communication, perpetrated by the human fear of death and being forgotten. Animals fear death as well, but to be remembered they try only to procreate, rather than make up symbols to stand for something.
I will say that DNA is quite odd, and that is something that has yet to be explained properly. Such as, why do certain ferns and plants have more DNA than supposed 'complex' animals?

You are comparing the evolution of animals over millions of years to evolution of a dog that may have been occurring over ten thousand. Thus, this point is invalid, because your time scale is off by a factor of at least 100.
Referring to even human evolution, regarding the HIV infection, there are in fact some people who have an altered form of a gene (a mutation), probably carried over from ancestors who survived the Black Death, that also works to counteract HIV. They have an altered glycoprotein on their cells that the HIV attacks, so the HIV has a difficult, if not impossible, time doing so. Then the difference of dark people and light people. Increased melanin in the skin is used to help protect against sunlight. Decreased is because one doesn't need it, and so doesn't need to waste energy producing it.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is referring to natural, unaltered, things without a 'push.' Evolution is that push. The initial creation of life by, perhaps, the jolt of electricity that caused it was the extra initial push. Then, some impetus drove the early species to change and grow. What did? I don't know, let me hop in my Time Machine and go ask them.

Many species that are not related do have similar embryological stages. On page 113 of the Thirteenth Edition of "Integrated Principles of Zoology," a picture of several embryos show their similarity. It's not that they looks exactly the same, but they have many structures which are similar, which are then lost or grown depending on the species.
Check out colonial species, and think if some mutation caused them to fuse together, then leading to selection, then leading to things taking certain tasks because of location, or the introduction of other species.

I agree with you on the chemical aspects; there is a lot of randomness that had to happen. But we still barely understand early Earth, and is it possible there were enough areas where this randomness was occurring that it just happened in one of them? Maybe. I'm not an expert in organic chemistry.

And then forming into intelligent life that eventually evolved... hmm... that takes a lifetime of work to discuss, and as I have not devoted my lifetime to this, then I cannot discuss it in the detail you'd like.

Transitional forms are species in their own right. Looking at groups of flightless birds, going from: Tinamou, Kiwi, Moa, Elephant Bird, Cassowary, Emu, Ostrich, and finally the Rhea, the similarity between them is great. But these are all separate species, listed in their evolutionary order. Thus, the Kiwi is a transitional species if one is concerning the Tinamou and the Moa. Continue this with the rest.

And I counter your appendix and tonsils with the tail bone. Or what about facial hair? Or body hair in general for humans? In apes, these things have purpose (most of them), but as far as people are concerned, they really don't.

Yes, evolution does have its problems. That's why religion is still around. Religion has its problems too, and that's why evolution is still around. The reason why macro-evolution has not been observed yet is because we've been observing for a little over 100 years. And when we're talking about evolution over millions of years, that is not a reliable number.
And to parrot your last line...
Religion is logically impossible and continues to be supported by 'believers' due to blind faith in their books.

Answer 5

Went through your whole list. Your handle needs to be, " Mr. know nothing ". Not worth wasting valuable time that could be spent answering real questions.

ejc11. We all have answered these questions " against our better judgment " many times. Then see the best answer go to some dimwit agreeing with the religious delusions of the questioner. It is not the points lost, but the minds wasted with the sheer nonsense inhibiting the reasoning processes. Even secretsause gets tired of these type questions. There are many people asking legitimate questions here. Do as you see fit, though.

Answer 6

While I dont have time to critique the entirety of your "question," there is one glaringly obvious mistake which I wished to point out. Various hypotheses regarding the origin of life are in no way part of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution, and it's vehicle of natural selection, is a theory put forth to explain several things regarding life on earth. For example the diversity of life on continents in comparison to the lack of such diversity on remote islands. The point here is simply that ToE and hypotheses regarding the origin of life are entirely independent of one another. As such, ToE cannot be judged by flaws in other biological ideas.

Answer 7

Chance: Consider the implausibility of our universe - our anything in it - merely appearing by random chance. Think about how absurd it would be to imagine, for example, that Leonardo da Vinci's "The Last Supper" had simply painted itself. Study the vast complexity of a human eye or an egg, for example. Think of the miraculous fine-tuning God did when He created Earth (if we were closer or farther away from the sun, our temperatures would not be compatible with life; if water were like virtually any other liquid, it would freeze from the bottom up rather than the top down, killing aquatic life and destroying the oxygen supply, etc.). Moreover, consider how molecular biology has now shown that there is no such thing as a "primitive" cell, but all cells are incredibly complex right from their beginning.


Recapitulation: This is the notion that an embryo repeats the evolutionary history of its species while it's developing in the womb (for example, an emerging human is at first a fish, then a frog, and so on until finally becoming a human before birth). Molecular research has shown without a doubt that the DNA for a fish is completely separate and distinct from the DNA for a frog, an ape, or a human. Each species' DNA is uniquely programmed to reproduce only within that same species.



Empirical Science: The law of energy conservation states that while energy can be converted from one form to another, it can neither be created nor annihilated. It is illogical to believe that something can come out of nothing. The law of entropy states that everything runs inexorably from order to disorder and from complexity to decay. But evolution contradicts this law by asserting that the universe runs in the opposite direction - from chaos to order and complexity.

Answer 8

You forgot one very important thing in your long dissertation.

Where did your intelligent designer come from? None of what you say can carry any weight whatsoever unless you can answer that question.

And, "it's always been there" isn't an answer.

Hey, Mr. Know Nothing. How come you feel free to respond to me personally but have blocked any of us from responding to you personally? Are you afraid we might send you some straight line reasoning? You tell me god is like a circle: no beginning and no end. But it's your reasoning that is circular and therefore not legitimate.

Answer 9

By golly, you're completely right! How could I have been so silly as to ever have believed in something you have so easily disproved. You are so wise, I am ashamed. By the way, did you know God doesn't exist because there are numerous discrepencies within each religion and between religions? Not to mention that there is no way that any God could operate as every book says he, or they, did. I mean, the chance that I don't really understand what I'm talking about isn't worth thinking about.

Answer 10

10pts to ejc11.

your 8 points fail to support a designer.

I would argue against intelligent design because its just bad faith and does harm to belief. The realms are seperate.

good luck!